IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W .M.P.Nos . 4 5774 & 4 5775 o f 2025 Tvl. Tamil Nadu Steels and Cements, GSTIN: 33AEYPV6757K1ZC, Represented by its Proprietor Vincent 422/1, Near KR Hospital, SRKV Post, MTP Road, Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore – 641 020. ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Tax Officer, Peiyanaickenpalayam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Dr. Balasundarm Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. ... Respondent Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned Order in Form GST DRC 07 bearing reference no.ZD330424185200U dated 24.4.2024 issued by the Sole Respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.G.Derrick Sam For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate

ORDER

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

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate for the respondent, this Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.

3. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Order dated

24.04.2024 passed for the tax period 2018-2019 after the petitioner’s application filed under Section 161 of the GST enactment to rectify the impugned order turned futile as the respondent rejected the said application by an Order dated 07.10.2024.

4. The present writ petition has been filed only on 23.10.2025, when the department initiated recovery proceedings pursuant to the impugned Order dated 24.04.2024.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the dispute has arisen purely on account of the difference in GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B filed by the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the total taxable turnover of the petitioner during the period 2018-2019 was Rs.3,14,17,746/-, and total tax payable by the petitioner on the local supplies during the period 2018-2019 was Rs.70,43,762/- (Rs.35,21,881 towards CGST and Rs.35,21,881/- towards SGST).

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that on account of the mistake in GSTR-09, demand proposed in the show cause notice in DRC-01 dated 27.12.2023, has been confirmed vide impugned order in DRC-07.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that since the impugned order was passed on 24.04.2024, the petitioner promptly filed an application for rectification of the impugned order on 23.07.2024 under Section 161 of the respective GST Acts. However, the respondent passed a template order rejecting the same vide Order dated 07.10.2024, which reads as under:

With reference to the application referred to above regarding rectification of order (details of which is mentioned in table below), the said application has not been found satisfactory for the reasons attached in annexure Accordingly, the application is rejected.

Details of the order intended to be rectified Sr.No Description Particulars

1 Order Reference Number ZD330424185200U

2 Date of Order 24/4/2024

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the petitioner may be given one opportunity to explain the case before the respondent in response to the application dated 23.07.2024, and the petitioner is agreeable for deposit of the balance amount of the disputed tax of Rs.1,55,110/- confirmed vide impugned Order dated 24.04.2024 as a condition for the respondent to redo the exercise under Section 161 of the respective GST Acts.

10. The submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner stand recorded.

11. A reading of the impugned Order dated 07.10.2024 passed for the tax period 2018-2019 indicates that there is a total non-application of mind by the respondent while passing the order and that it is a template order. 12. Considering the same, the matter is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petiti