IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 09.12.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.Nos.53685 & 53687 of 2025 Tvl.Quality Engineers & Constructors, Rep. By its Proprietor, Mr.N.Elamurugan, 7A, Rajaji Nagar, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District – 614 001. ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Tax Officer, Mannargudi Assessment Circle West First Street, Water Tank Building, Mannargudi – 614 001.

Thiruvarur District. ... Respondent Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the impugned order bearing Ref. No. ZD330325115540Y dated 17.03.2025 passed by the Respondent under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017 to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Thangaraj 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

17.03.2025 passed by the respondent, whereby the earlier Order dated 29.05.2024 came to be partly modified, taking note of the Central Authority’s Order-In-Original No. 09/2024-GST, dated 19.04.2024.

4. As far as Order-In-Original No. 09/2024-GST is concerned, the dispute pertains to the alleged belated availment of Input Tax Credit under Section 16(4) of the respective GST Act. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against the said order before the Appellate Authority on 20.06.2024 and the same is pending consideration.

5. Prima facie, the issue, as far as Section 16(4) violation is concerned, stands covered by statutory intervention in view of insertion of Section 16(5) and 16(6) by way of Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 (15 of 2024), dated 16.08.2024, w.e.f. 27.09.2024 vide SO 4523(E) w.r.e.f 01.07.2017. The demand that was confirmed by the Order dated 29.05.2024 for the tax period 2018-2019, which was also covered by the Order-In-Original No. 09/2024- GST dated 19.04.2024, has now been rectified by the impugned Order dated 17.03.2025, pursuant to an application filed on 27.08.2024 to rectify the Order dated 29.05.2024.

6. Thus, the surviving demand is only on account of the difference in the amount confirmed by the Central Authority by Order-In-Original No. 09/2024-GST dated 19.04.2024 on account of the alleged violation of Section 16(4) of the respective GST Act and on account of the interest due and payable by the petitioner for late filing of GSTR-3B returns. The interest has been levied under Section 50(1) read with Section 75(12) of the respective GST enactments.

7. As such, the concern of the petitioner stands addressed insofar as the duplication/overlap of the demand, which is consistent with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Armour Security (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner, CGST, Delhi East Commissionerate and another, reported in (2025) 145 GSTR 385. In Paragraph 98, 99, 100 and 101 of the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

“98. We issue the following guidelines to be followed in cases where, after the commencement of an inquiry or investigation by one authority, another inquiry or investigation on the same subject-matter is initiated by a different authority.

(a) Where a summons or a show-cause notice is issued by either the Central or the State tax authority to an assessee, the assessee is, in the first instance, obliged to comply by appearing and furnishing the requisite response, as the case may be. We say, so because, mere issuance of a summons does not enable either the issuing authority or the recipient to ascertain that proceedings have been initiated.

(b) Where an assessee becomes aware that the matter being inquired into or investigated is already the subject of an inquiry or investigation by another authority, the assessee shall forthwith inform, in