IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 11.12.2025

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

and

W.M.P.Nos.54216 and 54220 of 2025

M/s.Sri Meenakshi Steels,

Represented by its Proprietor

M.Ashok Chakkaravarthy. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC),

Central – II,

Arumbakkam, Chennai – 600 006.

2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

Arumbakkam Assessment Circle,

No.1, Greams Road, 4th Floor,

PAPJM (Annexe) Building,

Chennai – 600 006.

3.The Branch Manager,

Axis Bank,

No.113, Gopathi Narayana Swami,

Chetty Road,

Satyamurthy Nagar,

T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records made in

Impugned Order dated 07.05.2025 made in GSTIN/33BYRPA0792H1ZE/2022-23 passed by the proceeding of the 2^nd respondent and notice to the 3^rd respondent under Section 79(1)(c) of the 1^st respondent made in GSTIN 33BYRPA0792H1ZE/2025 dated 22.09.2025 and quash the same as illegal, void and unconstitutional and consequently directing the 1^st respondent to refund the amount Rs.18,51,096/- from the petitioner’s Axis Bank, T.Nagar Branch in Current Account No.920020058155395.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.M.Sivasooriyan For Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate for R1 & R2

ORDER

Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government advocate takes notice for the 1^st and 2^nd Respondents.

2. This 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 1^st and 2^nd Respondents.

3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 07.05.2025, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 02.09.2024 which was replied by the Petitioner to the 1^st Respondent on 02.10.2024 in Form GST DRC 06. However, the 2^nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2025 without reference to the reply dated 02.10.2024.

4. The Petitioner has became aware of the impugned order purportedly only after the recovery proceedings was initiated by the office of the 1^st Respondent recovering a sum of Rs.18,51,096/- directly from the Petitioner’s bank account with the 3^rd respondent on 22.09.2025. The reply of the Petitioner dated 02.10.2024 reads as under:-

“With reference to your above mentioned notice we are submitting the below details and enclosed necessary documents for your reference.

Input claimed as RCM:

We have filed our GSTR 1 for the month of Jan 2023 with wrong GSTIN and paid IGST for an amount of Rs.13,45,114/. We paid the amount and filed GSTR 3B, (Jan

2023)

Since the supply was with in the state, we have amended the GSTIN of the customer in the month of Feb 2023. Due to the amendment of the GSTIN the amount paid under IGST in Jan 2023 for an amount of Rs.13,54,114/- was reflected as negative figure in February GSTR 1.

In order to claim the amount paid under IGST, and there is no option to mention the negative figures in GSTR 3B, we have claimed the same as input under RCM as SGST of Rs.6,72,557/- and CGST of Rs.6,72,557/- enclosed GSTR – 1 and GSTR 3B for Jan 2023 and Feb 2023 for your reference.

Also enclosed GSTR reconciliation for your reference. As per the rule the IGST can be adjusted against both CGST and SGST, we have claimed this excess amount paid as input credit under RCM.”

5. There is a clear manifest violation of principles of natural justice as the Petitioner has indeed replied to the Notice in GST DRC – 01 dated 02.09.2024. The recovery without proper notice to the Petitioner particularly after the Petitioner filed a reply to the Notice in GST DRC – 01 dated

03.09.2024 ought not to have been made.

6. Since recovery has been made directly from the Petitioner’s bank account with the 3^rd Respondent, the case is remitted back to the 1^st Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and taking note of the reply to the Petitioner dated 02.10.2024.

7. Since the amount has been re