Disposed

Topline Associates v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)

Madras HC1 Apr 2026WP/12008/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trader challenged two GST demand orders that denied exemption while also blocking proportionate input tax credit on reversed inputs. At admission, with petitioner consenting to pre-deposit 10% disputed tax, court remitted matters for a fresh composite show cause notice, final adjudication within three months, and automatic lifting of any bank account attachment.

What did the court decide?

Remand for de novo adjudication after 10% pre-deposit of disputed tax; composite SCN within 45 days; final order within 3 months; automatic vacation of bank attachment on compliance.

Topline Associates Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac) — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP Nos.12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01-04-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶6

WP Nos. 12008 and 12021 of 2026 and WMP Nos. 13105, 13106, 13118 and 13119 of 2026

¶7

WP.No.12008 of 2026

¶8

Topline Associates Rep. by its Partner, Mohammed Rizwan, 2, 10/41, Anaikar Complex, M.V. Badran Street, Periamet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600 003.

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Also known as the commercial tax officer) Vepery Assessment circle, No.1, Room No.A-110, Ct Annex Building, 1st Floor, Greems Road, Chennai-600 006

¶12

..Respondent(s)

¶13

WP No. 12021 of 2026

¶14

Topline Associates Rep. by its Partner, Mohammed Rizwan, 2, 10/41, Anaikar Complex, M.V. Badran Street, Periamet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu- 600 003.

¶15

..Petitioner(s)

¶16

__________ Page1 of 7

¶17

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

¶18

WP Nos.12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶19

¶20

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Also known as the commercial tax officer) Vepery Assessment circle, No.1, Room No.A-110, Ct Annex Building, 1st Floor, Greems Road, Chennai-600 006

¶21

..Respondent(s)

¶22

Prayer in WP.No.12008 of 2026 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the learned Respondent herein in GSTIN/33AAFFT3692N1ZO/ 2021-22 in FORM GST DRC-07 in Order Reference No. ZD3312252574993 dated 16.12.2025 and quash the same.

¶23

Prayer in WP.No.12021 of 2026 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the learned Respondent herein in GSTIN/33AAFFT3692N1ZO/2021-22 in FORM GST DRC-07 in Order Reference No. ZD331225257742G dated 16.12.2025 and quash the same

¶24

WP Nos. 12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶25

For Petitioner(s): Mr.B Syed Abdul Wakeel For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate

¶26

__________ Page2 of 7

¶27

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

¶28

WP Nos.12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the

¶31

Respondent.

¶32

These Writ Petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

¶33

The Petitioner is before this Court against two orders, both dated 16.12.2025, whereby the proposal in Show Cause Notices dated 02.09.2025 and 23.09.2025 respectively that preceded the respective impugned orders has been confirmed.

¶34

The case of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner has not only been denied the benefit of exemption, but has also been denied the proportionate Input Tax Credit. It is submitted that it is the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner

¶35

was not entitled to exemption, the Petitioner should be allowed the proportionate Input Tax Credit on the inputs/input service reversed by the Petitioner.

¶36

Prima facie , there is an indication that there is a contradictory in the stand taken by the respondent in the respective proceedings.

¶37

Page3 of 7

¶38

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

¶39

WP Nos.12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶40

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is also willing to pre deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for denova adjudication and has also made an endorsement to that effect in the

¶41

Court bundle, which is extracted hereunder:-

¶42

“ The Petitioner undertakes to pay 10% of the disputed tax as pre-condition as per the Order of the Hon’ble Court to participate in the proceedings after a fresh Show Cause Notice is issued.”

¶43

Considering the same, I am inclined to remit the cases back to the respondent to issue a composite notice within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed taxes respectively 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.

¶44

The Petitioner shall thereafter file a reply to the said Composite Show Cause Notices in lieu of the Show Cause Notices in GST DRC-01 dated 02.09.2025 and 23.09.2025 respectively, together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 16.02.2025 as an addendum to the respective Show Cause Notices.

¶45

Page4 of 7

¶46

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

¶47

WP Nos.12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶48

In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the

¶49

Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner if any, shall also stand automatically vacated.

¶50

It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed taxes respectively as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

¶51

In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.

¶52

Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.

¶53

__________ Page5 of 7

¶54

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

¶55

WP Nos.12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶56

These Writ Petitions are disposed of with the above observations. No

¶57

costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶58

01-04-2026

¶59

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶60

¶61

¶62

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) (Also known as the commercial tax officer) Vepery Assessment circle, No.1, Room No.A-110, Ct Annex Building, 1st Floor, Greems Road, Chennai-600 006

¶63

__________ Page6 of 7

¶64

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

¶65

WP Nos.12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶66

C.SARAVANAN J.

¶67

¶68

WP Nos. 12008 and 12021 of 2026 and WMP Nos. 13105, 13106, 13118 and 13119 of 2026

¶69

01-04-2026

¶70

__________ Page7 of 7

¶71

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

¶72

WP Nos.12008 and 12021 of 2026

¶73

__________ Page8 of 7

¶74

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

Topline Associates v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Topline Associates 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

Arunprasad Stores Vs the Deputy State Tax Officer 1

Tvl.Sai Sukran Ventures Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)

Sei Tejas Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (Ct)

M/s Saravana Ads Vs The Assistant Commissioner

S.Shobha Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Ms Mht Engineering Vs The Principal Secretary