Kpr Enterprises v. The State Tax Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved On

26.11.2025 Pronounced On

12.06.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.Nos.38346, 38355 and 38364 of 2024

KPR Enterprises Represented by its Proprietor ... Petitioner in all W.Ps

Vs. The State Tax Officer, Inspection Cell-5, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) (Int), No.3/47, Sapthagiri Complex, Hosur Division, Hosur. ... Respondent in all W.Ps Prayer in W.P.No.35453 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent leading to issuance of Impugned Order dated 15.07.2024 vide GSTIN/YEAR: 33CUDPP8192B1ZM/2018-2019 and quash the same and direct the Respondent to pass order after considering the reply to be filed by the Petitioner. Prayer in W.P.No.35458 of 2024 : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent leading to issuance of Impugned Order dated 15.07.2024 vide GSTIN/YEAR: 33CUDPP8192B1ZM/2019-2020 and quash the same and direct the Respondent to pass order after considering the reply to be filed by the Petitioner. Prayer in W.P.No.35463 of 2024: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent leading to issuance of Impugned Order dated 15.07.2024 vide GSTIN/YEAR: 33CUDPP8192B1ZM/2020-2021 and quash the same and direct the Respondent to pass order after considering the reply to be filed by the Petitioner. For Petitioner : Dr.S.Sathyanarayanan (In all W.Ps) For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran (In all W.Ps) Government Advocate COMMON ORDER By this Common Order, all these Writ Petitions are being disposed of.

¶2In these Writ Petitions, the Petitioner has challenged the respective impugned Orders all dated 15.07.2024 passed for the Tax Period 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-2021, as detailed below: S. No. Writ Petition No. Tax Period DRC-01A Date of Reply to DRC-01A DRC-01 Date of Reply to DRC-01 DRC-07 35453/2024 2018-2019

20.03.2024

23.03.2024

02.04.2024 25.06.2024 15.07.2024 35458/2024 2019-2020

20.03.2024

23.03.2024

02.04.2024 25.06.2024 15.07.2024 35463/2024 2020-2021

20.03.2024

23.03.2024

02.04.2024 25.06.2024 15.07.2024

¶3The impugned Orders have preceded Intimation Notices in GST DRC-01A followed by the Show Cause Notices in GST DRC-01 to which the Petitioner has given reply.

¶4The case of the Petitioner appears to be that the Petitioner was unable to carry on the business and therefore entered into a contract with one B.T.Nagaraj Reddy, who extracted the boulders from the site and the price was fixed based on the provisional advisor consultations / instructions and GST was duly discharged.

¶5It is submitted that despite no incriminating being unearthed in the inspection during March 2024, Intimation Notices in DRC-01A were issued to the petitioner to which the Petitioner had replied.

¶6It is submitted that the Petitioner was also issued with Show Cause Notices in GST DRC-01 to which also, the Petitioner has replied. It is further submitted that the finding arrived in the impugned Orders regarding "fraud", "willful-misstatement" and "suppression of fact" is absent.

¶7It is further submitted that the Petitioner sold only rock boulders which are not capable of being used or even followed by the measurements and that the said Contractor namely B.T.Nagaraj Reddy had discharged the tax liability, who extracted the boulders, and sold them from the Petitioner's site. Hence, there is no loss to the exchequers.

¶8That apart, it is submitted that the impugned Orders have been passed without the Petitioner being given an opportunity of being heard and therefore the impugned Orders are liable to be quashed and the Writ Petitions be allowed.

¶9Learned Government Advocate for the Respondent on the other hand would submit that the impugned Orders are detailed Orders and does not merit any interference and therefore these Writ Petitions are liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

¶10By the impugned order, the demand has been confirmed based on the seigniorage fee paid by the petitioner. In the show cause notice, the department has arrived at the quantity of boulders cleared by the petitioner in Cubic Meters and Tons, which are extracted below: S.Nos. W.P.Nos. Tax Period Seignorage fee Quantity of boulders in Cubic Meters Tax Liability 35453/2024 2018-2019 708000 12000 10,17,750 35458/2024 2019-2020 2478000 42000 14,09,568 35463/2024 2020-2021 2832000 48000 16,38,650 The petitioner has, however, declared the value of the supply in GSTR-1 as 34,09,433/-.

¶11I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent. I have also perused the records and the provisions of the respective GST enactments and the Rules made thereunder.

¶12This case was heard along with the batch, and decisions were pronounced in W.P.Nos.2142 of 2026 [Turbo Energy Private Limited], W.P.Nos.35967 of 2024 [Fastenex Private Limited], W.P.Nos.14487 of 2025 [Ispahani Estates] etc., wherein a detailed order has been passed insofar as the invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments.

¶13The arguments in this case were advanced along with the arguments heard in the 53 cases which were disposed by two separate orders, whereby orders were pronounced in the aforesaid cases.

¶14A reading of the impugned order reveals that the inspection was held prior to the issuance of the above information on 19.03.2024.

¶15As far as the tax payable on the seigniorage fee is concerned, the matter is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same has been kept in abeyance. As far as the difference in the value of supply is concerned, the respondent has arrived at the tax based on the inference that there was a suppression of the value of supply of boulders in GSTR-1, warranting the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments.

¶16The facts on record and the above tabulation would reveal that the petitioner has suppressed turn over, warranting the initiation of proceedings under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments.

¶17It is evident that the respondent has estimated the escaped turnover based on the National Standard Method in order to arrive at the value of supply short declared by the petitioner in the Returns to invoke the machinery under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments. It is also highly improbable for the petitioner to have paid the higher amounts towards the seigniorage fee as compared to lesser quantity of minerals extracted and supplied during the respective tax periods.

¶18It is in this background, the value was arrived and the demand has been confirmed.

¶19In the show cause notice also, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner has suppressed the value of the output supply of goods in GSTR-1, based on the calculation given therein. Thus, there were sufficient materials / foundational facts available for the issuance of a notice under Section 74 to demand tax for the above tax period.

¶20Since the petitioner has paid a huge amount for the seigniorage fee, but has under-declared the value of the outward supply, it is evident that a prima facie case was made out for the invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments, as both under Section 73 and 74 of the respective GST enactments, the expression used is "Where it appears".

¶21As such, the challenge to the impugned order on the ground that there is no basis for invoking the extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST enactments, cannot be countenanced.

¶22As such, I am unable to discern any any procedural irregularity committed by the respondent while passing the respective impugned orders so as to interfere with the present writ petitions

¶23Therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed, and are accordingly, dismissed. However, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal before the appellate authority, if so desired, in compliance with the requirements under Section 74, within a period of 30 days form the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶24If such an appeal is filed within the specified time, the appellate authority shall take up the appeal and dispose the same on merits without reference to limitation.

¶25It is needless to state that, before passing any orders, the petitioner shall be heard. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

12.06.2026 arb / raja To The State Tax Officer, Inspection Cell-5, Office of the Joint Commissioner (ST) (Int), No.3/47, Sapthagiri Complex, Hosur Division, Hosur.

C.SARAVANAN, J. arb / raja Pre-delivery Order in W.P.Nos.35453, 35458 &35463 of 2024 and W.M.P.Nos.38346, 38355 and 38364 of 2024

12.06.2026