Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 24006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.SARAVANAN, J
M/s.Demoltech Engineers Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise – Respondent
W.P.No.7943 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Sathyakumar .M
For the Respondents: Mr.M.Santhanaraman Senior Standing Counsel, Mr.J.Vasu Junior Standing Counsel
Petitioner failed to utilize available statutory options under GST laws and did not discharge tax liabilities, leading to dismissal of writ petition.
Headnote:(A) Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Section 73 - Writ Petition challenging demand order - Petitioner contends tax liability settled but demand confirmed denies merit - Court observes failure to utilize amnesty under Section 73 and the option to pay penalty - Writ petition dismissed with directive to discharge liabilities. (Paras 3, 9, 10)
(B) Taxation - Review of tax demand validity - Court does not entertain claims made post-notice issuance when requisites not followed. (Paras 4, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenges the demand order dated 28.02.2025 issued for the financial year 2020-2021 seeking to quash the demand based on unsettled tax liabilities.
Findings of Court:
Writ dismissed, directing the petitioner to comply with the demand.
Issues: Whether the petitioner fulfilled tax obligations post-notice and merit of demand order.
Ratio Decidendi: It was found that the failure to utilize the available amnesty and options under GST Regulations hindered the petitioner's claims, thus aligning with statutory mandates.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction and parties involved. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner failed to utilize available legal remedies. (Para 2 , 6 , 9) |
| 3. challenge to impugned order under gst. (Para 3) |
| 4. arguments on liability and penalties. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 5. applicability of section 73 of gst. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. concluding order for payment and consequences. (Para 10) |
O R D E R
Mr.J.Vasu, learned Junior Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondents.
2. The writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself with the consent of both sides.
3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 passed for the tax period 2020-2021 under Section 73 of the respective GST Enactments, whereby the following demand has been confirmed against the petitioner.
4. The specific case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the Notice dated 01.10.2024 in Form GST ASMT - 10, the petitioner discharged the tax liability for the said tax period on 28.10.2024 and therefore, the demand confirmed by the impugned order dated 28.02.2025 pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2024 in Form GST DRC - 01 issued for the said tax period is without any merits.
5. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not liable to pay the interest and penalty as confirmed by the impugned order is without any merits.
6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.
7. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed, as Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 has been invoked and a Show Cause Notice dated 27.11.2024 in Form GST DRC-01 has been issued to the petitioner. The petitioner had the option to pay not only the tax demand for the said tax period but also interest and penalty at the rate specified under Sections 73(5) and 73(8) of the respective GST Enactments.
8. For the sake of clarity, Sections 73(5) and 73(8) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is extracted hereunder:
9. However, the petitioner failed to take advantage of the inbuilt amnesty under Section 73 of the respective GST Enactments to discharge the liability. The petitioner also had other options available under the respective GST Enactments, which the petitioner had failed to avail.
10. Considering the above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to discharge the tax liability, interest and penalty as confirmed by the impugned order as expeditiously as possible, failing which, the respondents are at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 79 of the respective GST Enactments. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
10.03.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No mk To
