SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11884

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C. SARAVANAN
Tvl Innotek Automation – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy State Tax Officer II – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.No.4074 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 05.02.2026

Coram

The Honourable Mr.Justice C.Saravanan

W.P.No.4074 of 2026

and

W.M.P.Nos.4536 & 4537of 2026

Tvl Innotek Automation

Rep. by its Partner, Mr.V.Aravind .. Petitioner

Vs.

The Deputy State Tax Officer- II

Podanur Assessment Circle

Coimbatore, Tamil nadu. . ..Respondent

Prayer

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the

impugned order in Ref. No. ZD330924167877P dated 25.09.2024 for the

Financial Year 2022-23 passed under Section 74 of the CGST/TNGST Act

2017 and uploaded along with the summary of order in DRC-07 from the

files of the respondent herein.

.

For Petitioner : M/s.Aparna Nandakumar

For Respondent : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik

Additional Government Pleader

Order

Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik learned Additional Government Pleader takes

notice on behalf of the Respondent.

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:18:35 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.4074 of 2026

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission

with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned

counsel for the Respondent.

3. The Petitioner is before this Court against the impugned Order

dated 25.09.2024 in Form GST DRC-07 passed for the tax period 2022-23

under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments, whereby, the proposal

in the Show Cause Notice dated 04.06.2024 has been confirmed against the

petitioner. The petitioner failed to reply to the Show Cause Notice dated

04.06.2024 and thus suffered the impugned Order.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the

dispute has arisen purely on account of Input Tax Credit availed with regard

to the Motor Vehicle stated to have purchased by the Petitioner during the

March, 2023.

5. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that

the credit that was availed during the month of April, 2021 had remained un-

utilized towards discharge of tax liability on the supply made by them, as

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:18:35 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.4074 of 2026

the Petitioner had sufficient balance in the Electronic Credit Ledger.

However, there are no records to substantiate the same.

6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that pursuant to the issuance

of a Notice in DRC-01A on 09.11.2023, the Petitioner also reversed the

credit that was availed earlier, despite the same, the Respondent has

proceeded to issue a Show Cause Notice dated 04.06.2024 in DRC-01

proposing the demand, which has now been confirmed by the impugned

Order.

7. It is the specific case of the petitioner, in line with Circular

No.12/2024 dated 10.07.2024, the Petitioner also filed a Form in GST

DRC-03A on 12.02.2025 wherein, it has been stated as under:-

‘I hereby undertake that the payment made

vide the Form GST DRC-03 with unique ARN

number AD330124032161X has actually been

intended to be paid against the demand id

ZD330924167877P and has not been used towards

any other demand/payment made by me.

I also under to pay back to the Government the

amount so adjusted using this form along with

applicable interest, if any of the details declared

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 01:18:35 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.4074 of 2026

above are found to be false subsequently. I will also

be liable to penal action under Section 122 (1) (x) of

CGST Act.”

8. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner

that there is no justification in either imposing penalty under Section 74 of

the respective GST Enactments or interest under Section 50 of the respective

GST Enactments.

9. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also drawn the attention

of this Court to a decision of this Court in Refex Industries Ltd. And

others Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise,

Maraimalai Nagar Division and others) reported in 2020 (34) GSTL 588 :

2020 74 GSTR 274 (Mad) wherein, it has been held as under:

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top