Lalitha.R v. The State Tax Officer (Fac)

ORDER Mr.C.Harsharaj, learned Special Government Pleader takes notice for the Respondent.

¶2This Writ Petition is 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.

¶3Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶4In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment order dated 23.08.2024 passed by the respondent for the tax period from April 2019 to March 2020 which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in DRC-01 dated 21.05.2024 to which the petitioner failed to file a reply and has thus suffered the impugned Assessment order.

¶5By the aforesaid impugned Assessment order, the following demand has been confirmed against the petitioner: S.No . Issue SGST CGST IGST CESS Total Total tax due in (Excess claim of ITC) above 235186 235186 53941 524313 Interest 197432 196782 45062 432976 Penalty

on amount in S.No.1 23519 23519 20000 67038 Total (1+2+3) 456137 455487 119003 1030627

¶6The challenge to the impugned order is primarily on the ground that, in so far as the excess claim of ITC is concerned, the demand had already been confirmed by a separate order dated 28.11.2023 passed for the same tax period from April 2019 to March 2020. Against that order, the petitioner had filed an appeal with the mandatory pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax confirmed vide Assessment order dated 28.11.2023 before the Appellate Authority on

16.02.2024, which is still pending.

¶7The revenue abstract of the aforesaid earlier Assessment order dated

28.11.2023 passed earlier is reproduced for clarity. CGST SGST As per defect No.1 – ITC reversal determined / Tax payable Rs.5601/-Rs.5601/-As per defect No.2 – ITC reversal determined on exemption sales 2674268 X 5072562 --------------------------57709279 Rs.235064/-Rs.235064/-Total Payable Rs.240665/-Rs.240665/-Tax paid Nil Nil Balance Rs.240665/-Rs.240665/-

¶8A perusal of the above two tables prima facie indicates that there is overlap as well as a discrepancy in the computation of the alleged excess claim of ITC in the earlier Assessment order dated 28.11.2023 the demand was confirmed at Rs.2,35,064/- + Rs.2,35,064/- for CGST and SGST, whereas in the impugned order, on the very same issue, the demand has been confirmed as Rs.2,35,186/- + Rs.2,35,186/- for CGST and SGST and Rs.53,941/- for IGST towards excess input tax credit. Thus, there appear to be duplication of demand on the same subject matter. To that extent, the impugned order suffers from prima facie inconsistency and warrant reconsideration.

¶9As far as the demand confirmed vide impugned Assessment order dated

23.08.2024 under the same defect towards IGST is concerned, the petitioner had filed an application for rectification on 24.10.2024, which was rejected by an order dated 08.01.2026 which was challenged by the petitioner in another W.P.No.4161 of 2026.

¶10At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submit that the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit another 40% of the disputed tax over and above 10% of the disputed tax already deposited at the time of filing an appeal against earlier Assessment order dated 28.11.2023 as a condition for denovo adjudication.

¶11Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and cases have been remitted back to the Respondents to pass a fresh order on terms subject to such Assessee depositing 25% to 100% of the disputed tax depending upon the length of delay in approaching the Court. I do not find any reason to take a different view in this case.

¶12Considering the same and to secure the interests of both the petitioner and the respondent, the case is remitted back to the respondent to redo the exercise, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the IGST confirmed by the impugned order, amounting to Rs.53,941/-. The respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits, taking note of the earlier order passed on 28.11.2023.

¶13In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 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 shall also stand automatically vacated.

¶14It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 40% of the disputed tax 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.

¶15In 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.

¶16Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.

¶17This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 09-02-2026 cda To The State Tax Officer (FAC) Attur Town Circle, Salem, Tamil Nadu. WPeNo.e4156eofe2026 C.SARAVANANoJ. cda WPoNo.o4156oofo2026 WMPoNO.o4633oOFo2026, WMPoNO.o4632oOFo2026 09-02-2026 8e/e8

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and WMP NO. 4633 OF 2026, WMP NO. 4632 OF 2026 Lalitha.R (Proprietor of Tvl.Muthu Agencies) 1/449 B R.K.Building Salem Main Road Thalaivasal Attur Tk Salem Tamil Nadu 636112 Petitioner(s) Vs The State Tax Officer (FAC) Attur Town Circle, Salem, Tamil Nadu. Respondent(s) PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in FORM GST DRC -07 with Ref. No. ZD330824209274I along with its detailed order in GSTIN 33AFXPL8470K1ZN/ 2019-2020 both dated 23.08.2024, quash the same or pass such further or other orders as it may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Prasad For Respondent : Mr.C.Harsharaj, Special Government Pleader