Tax authorities possess overlapping jurisdiction, allowing enforcement actions by either Central or State entities under GST regulations.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED :27.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY W.P.(MD)Nos.5582 to 5586 of 2026 and WMP(MD) Nos.4657, 4663, 4659, 4660 and 4667 of 2026 Tvl. Dr. M. Sundaram Hospital Pvt. Ltd., Represented by its Director Dr.Vivek No.17/102 EVR Road, Puthur, Trichy 620 017.

... Petitioner Vs The State Tax Officer - II, (Rs) / the Commercial Tax Officer, Intelligence Wing, Trichy.. ... Respondent COMMON PRAYER :- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writs of Certiorari calling for the impugned assessment orders on the file of respondent vide GSTIN 33AAHCD7849Q1ZV/2020-21, GSTIN 33AAHCD7849Q1ZV/ 2021-22, GSTIN 33AAHCD7849Q1ZV/2022-23, GSTIN 33AAHCD7849Q1ZV/2023-24, and GSTIN 33AAHCD7849Q1ZV/ 2024-25 respectively and in summary order reference number ZD331125281743G, ZD3311252899062, ZD331125290339C, ZD331125290674C dated 17.11.2025 respectively and ZD331225016552U dated 01.12.2025 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits For Petitioner :Mr.Raja Karthikeyan (in all writ petitions)

For Respondents :Mr.R.Sureshkumar Additional Government Pleader

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned assessment orders of the respondent dated 17.11.2025 and 01.12.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner challenges the impugned orders on the ground of classification and jurisdiction.

4. On the ground of classification ie., as per cross enforcement is concerned, in the present case, initially, the petitioner was registered under the Central Excise Regime and therefore, it comes under the Central authorities, however, the State authorities have initiated the enforcement.

5. It is submitted that on the aspect of jurisdiction, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. As far as this issue is concerned, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Armour Security (India) Ltd., v. Commissioner, CST, Delhi East Commissionerate and another 2025 SCC Online SC 1700 by referring to Para 97(iii), would submit that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that intelligence based enforcement action can be initiated by any one of the Central or the State Tax administrations despite the taxpayer having been assigned to the other administration.

6. Therefore, in such view of the matter, certainly, the petitioner has been registered under the Central authorities, insofar as enforcement action is concerned, both under the GST regime, both Central and State has power. Accordingly, the State authorities have initiated the enforcement action and passed orders. Therefore, there is no error in initiating action on the part of the State and they are well within the jurisdiction to initiate such action.

7. As far as the classification issue is concerned, since there are disputed questions of facts involved, the issue pertaining to classification cannot be decided by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and all disputed question of facts can be decided by the appellate authority.

8. Finally, the petitioner has raised the issue with regard to the proceedings issued under Section 74 of the GST Act and penalty was levied. However, it is their case that for initiation of proceedings under , the respondent has to cull out the materials with regard to misrepresentation. However, no such materials were culled out. As far as this aspect is concerned, in these present cases, the petitioner had filed a reply. However, without properly considering the reply, if any order is passed, the remedy available to the petitioner is to file a