Disposed

Lakshmi Agencies, v. The Assistant Commissioner St

Madras HC14 Aug 2025WP(MD)/22224/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A GST dealer challenged a Section 73 TNGST Act assessment order for 2020-21, claiming it was passed without personal hearing and that appeal limitation had expired. The court quashed the order subject to depositing 25% of disputed tax and directed fresh assessment after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order quashed on terms, subject to deposit of 25% disputed tax (10% cash, 15% credit ledger) within 30 days; fresh order after hearing directed.

Lakshmi Agencies, Vs The Assistant Commissioner St — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

W.P(MD)No.22224 of 2025

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 14.08.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶6

W.P(MD)No.22224 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD)No.17318 of 2025

¶7

Lakshmi Agencies, Represented by its Proprietor Arumugam Anbazhagan GSTIN 33AGCPA9088N1Z3 No. 4B/4, Lakshmi Kudil, VOC Street, Veeramudaiyan Main Road, Alagappan Nagar, Madurai. ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural South Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Madurai 625020. ...Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN.33AGCPA9088N1Z3/ 2020-21 dated 14.02.2025 passed by the respondent under section 73 of TNGST Act 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording opportunity of being heard.

¶11

1/5

¶12

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

¶13

W.P(MD)No.22224 of 2025

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned assessment order, dated 14.02.2025 passed for the assessment year 2020-2021.

¶17

The impugned order was preceeded by a notice in From GST DRC 01 dated 26.11.2024, to which the petitioner has submitted a reply.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner failed to notice the

¶19

order in time and therefore, the petitioner was unable to file an appeal in time and within the time beyond the condonable period of limitation, which expired on 13.06.2025.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order although records that the petitioner was granted a personal hearing, the petitioner was not heard during personal hearing. Therefore, there is a violation of principles of natrual justice. The petitioner made several submissions on merits.

¶21

2/5

¶22

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

¶23

W.P(MD)No.22224 of 2025

¶24

Since the dealy is only marginal, this Court is inclined to rescue the person like the petitioner by quashing the assessment order on terms subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax.

¶25

6.Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of, by quashing the impugned order on terms, subject to the petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax from the Electronic Cash Register and 15% from the Electronic Credit Ledger, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶26

7.The petitioner shall file a reply to the show cause notice that preceded the impugned order within such time. The impugned order, which stands quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent shall endeavour to pass a fresh order on merits as expeditiously as possible after hearing the petitioner.

¶27

8.It is also made clear that in case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, it will be deemed as if the Writ Petition was dismissed. In this case, it is open for the respondent to proceed to

¶28

3/5

¶29

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

¶30

W.P(MD)No.22224 of 2025

¶31

against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the respective GST enactments and the Rules made thereunder. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶32

19.08.2025

¶33

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No sn

¶34

¶35

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural South Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Madurai 625020.

¶36

4/5

¶37

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

¶38

W.P(MD)No.22224 of 2025

¶39

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶40

¶41

W.P(MD).No.22224 of 2025

¶42

19.08.2025

¶43

5/5

¶44

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

Lakshmi Agencies, v. The Assistant Commissioner St

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmi Agencies, v. The Assistant Commissioner St

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

Iyem Perumal S Vs The Commissioner

Tvl. Honeybee Recreation Club Pallapatti Vs The District Collector

P.M Chellapandi Vs The Joint Commissioner

Raja Muthukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer

Tvl Jobo Structurals, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

R Vellaisamy Vs The State Tax Officer-1 (Inspection)