Disposed

Tvl. Annamalaiar Mills Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Madras HC16 Jul 2025WP(MD)/19232/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a GST demand order for tax period 2020-21 confirmed without response to show cause and hearing notices. The court quashed the impugned order on terms, requiring deposit of 25% of disputed tax and a reply, with directions for fresh assessment after personal hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned GST order quashed on terms; 25% of disputed tax deposit and reply required; fresh assessment ordered after hearing.

Tvl. Annamalaiar Mills Private Limited Vs The Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P.(MD) No. 19232 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 16.07.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P.(MD) No. 19232 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD) No.14780 of 2025

¶7

Tvl. Annamalaiar Mills Private Limited, rep. by its Managing Director S.Jayabalan.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Dindigul Rural Assessment Circle, Dindigul.

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent vide his order in Ref. No. ZD330924206611N/2020-21, dated 30.09.2024 and quash the same as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and further direct the respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.

¶13

1/5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

W.P.(MD) No. 19232 of 2025

¶16

For petitioner : Mr. A.Satheesh Murugan For respondent : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan Government Advocate

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

This Writ Petition is disposed of at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order, dated 30.09.2024, wherein the demand has been confirmed for the tax period 2020-21. The impugned order has been preceded the notices in DRC 01A, dated 12.12.2022, DRC 01, dated 28.11.2023 and three personal hearing notices dated 05.03.2025, 16.03.2024 and 28.03.2024. However, the petitioner has not responded to the same and therefore, the demand has been confirmed against the petitioner.

¶21

2/5

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

W.P.(MD) No. 19232 of 2025

¶24

It is noticed that under similar circumstances, this Court has come to

¶25

rescue of the persons like petitioner by quashing the impugned order on terms. There are no other circumstances to take a different view of the matter.

¶26

Considering the same, this Writ Petition is disposed of by quashing the impugned order on terms subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶27

The petitioner shall file a reply to the notice in DRC 01 dated 28.11.2023

¶28

by treating the impugned order as addendum to the Show Cause Notice.

¶29

In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the respondent shall proceed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner.

¶30

In case, the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, the respondent is at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in

¶31

3/5

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

W.P.(MD) No. 19232 of 2025

¶34

accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.

¶35

This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶36

Index : Yes / No 16.07.2025 Internet : Yes / No (6/6) apd To

¶37

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC), Dindigul Rural Assessment Circle, Dindigul.

¶38

4/5

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD) No. 19232 of 2025

¶41

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶42

apd

¶43

W.P.(MD) No. 19232 of 2025

¶44

16.07.2025 (6/6)

¶45

5/5

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Tvl. Annamalaiar Mills Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tvl. Annamalaiar Mills Private Limited v. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl Paramasivam Subramanian Raju Vs the Assistant Commissioner(St)

Sudalaikani v Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Selvarani Vs Government of India

Abubuckker Siddiq Vs The Passport Officer

Leejith Vs The Tahsildar

Gurunathan Vs The Vice-Chancellor and Chairman