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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 12837

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C. SARAVANAN
Tvl Roshan Agency – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.No.25753 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.25753 of 2024

Tvl. Roshan Agency,

Rep. by its Proprietor – Madan Lal,

No.46, Malayaperumal Street,

Chennai – 600001. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Kothawalchavadi Assessment Circle, North-1

Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex,

Room No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road,

Chennai – 600003.

2. The Bank Manager,

Karur Vysya Bank,

New No.37, Old No.13,

Godown Street, Chennai – 600001.

3. The State Tax Officer,

Office of Commercial Tax Officer,

Kothawalchavadi, Assessment Circle,

Chennai North-I,

Integrated Commercial Taxes Offices Complex,

Room No.234, 3rd Floor, No. 1275/3,

Bridge Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600003. ... Respondents

1/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 01:35:53 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.25753 of 2024

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for

issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the

files of 1st Respondent in his impugned proceedings made in

Roc.No.33ADXPP2894H1ZU/2024 dated 03.05.2024 vide Form GST

DRC-13 issued to the 2nd Respondent Bank for attaching the Bank Account of

the Petitioner, quash the same and further direct the 1st Respondent to lift the

Bank Attachment by withdrawing the letter issued in

Roc.No.33ADXPP2894H1ZU/2024 dated 03.05.2024 vide Form GST

DRC-13 to the 2nd Respondent Bank.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Abhishek

For R1 & R3 : Mr.C.Harsha Raj

Special Government Pleader

ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned recovery

proceedings along with the statutory demand notice in Form GST DRC-13

both dated 03.05.2024 which issued against the petitioner for the recovery of

demand confirmed for the Financial Year 2021-2022 vide Assessment Order

dated 07.11.2023.

2/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 01:35:53 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.25753 of 2024

2. It is noticed that two Assessment Orders were passed for the same

financial year (2021-2022) and on the same issue by the 1st Respondent on

11.05.2023 and the 3rd Respondent on 07.11.2023 respectively.

3. It is in this background the petitioner filed an application dated

16.12.2023 under Section 161 of the respective GST enactments for

rectification of the Order dated 07.11.2023. The demand was subsequently

dropped pursuant to a Rectification Order dated 27.05.2024.

4. No doubt, there was a mistake on the part of the department in

passing two separate orders on the same issue and for the same period, which

were covered by the Rectification Order dated 27.05.2024.

5. It is further noticed that the petitioner filed an appeal on 21.12.2023

against the Assessment Order dated 11.05.2023, which came to be rejected by

an Order dated 29.04.2025 on the ground of limitation. However, the

petitioner already pre-deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing

of an appeal dated 21.12.2023.

3/8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/02/2026 01:35:53 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.25753 of 2024

6. Against the impugned Assessment Order dated 11.05.2023, the

appeal was admittedly filed beyond the statutory period of limitation. The

Assessment Order dated 11.05.2023 was passed without the petitioner’s

participation in the Assessment proceedings by filing a reply to the Show

Cause Notice dated 23.03.2023 that preceded the aforesaid order or by

appearing for the personal hearing on the date fixed for personal hearing in

the aforesaid notice.

7. Taking note of the overall facts and circumstances of the case,

considering the fact that the petitioner had approached the appellate authority

although belatedly and following the consistent view taken under similar

circumstances, the case is remitted back to the 1st respondent to redo the

exercise and to pass a fresh order on merits in lieu of order dated 11.05.2023,

subject to the petitioner depositing 40% of the disputed tax confirmed vide

Assessment Order dated 11.05.2023 (in addition to the 10% already

deposited

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top