BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 11.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P(MD)Nos.6708 and 6710 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5537 and 5542 of 2026 Tvl.T.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner in both cases Vs.

The State Tax Officer(Roving Squad-2)

O/o.The Joint Commissioner(ST)(IW)

Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tirunelveli. ...Respondent in both cases Writ Petitions are filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN:33AHOPB1628E1ZT/2018-19 and 2020-2021, dated 03.12.2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019 and 2020-2021 passed by the respondent under Section 74 of TNGST Act, 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, non-application of mind, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to proceed afresh, if at all required only under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

For Petitioner :Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu For R1 to R4 :Mr.R.Sureshkumar Additional Government Pleader (in both cases)

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions are filed challenging the impugned order dated 13.12.2025 passed for the assessment years 2018-2019 and 2020-2021. 2.The impugned orders are passed under Section 74 of the TN GST Act, 2017. Show cause notices were issued on the petitioner on 28.03.2025 alleging that there is turnover difference between GSTR-3B and the profit and loss account as submitted by the petitioner in Form 26AS to the income tax authorities. The show cause notice itself says that the defect has been communicated to the petitioner to pay the difference in GST at the rate of 12% for the year 2018- 2019 and 2020-2021. The show cause notice further states that the taxpayer paid the pending tax due of CGST Rs.16,22,731/- and SGST of Rs.16,22,731/- vide DRC-03 dated 27.03.2025. Therefore, the notices were issued, for the belated payment as also for the payment of penalty under Section 74 of the TNGST Act.

3.This apart, show cause notices were also issued with reference to non filing of GSTR-9 and GSTR-9C imposing penalties amount of Rs.10,000/- each for CGST and SCST. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply explaining the circumstances in which the tax was not paid at the earliest point of time. Not accepting the reasons mentioned by the petitioner, the impugned order of assessment were passed on 03.02.2025. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even as per the show cause notice and the assessment order, what is noted, is the turnover difference between GSTR-3B and profit and loss account and in case of such differences and when the petitioner has voluntarily paid the tax even before the issuance of show cause notice, the authorities have no jurisdiction whatsoever to invoke section 74 of the Act. At best only section 73 of the Act, could have been invoked, and the maximum penalty that was impossible only 10%.

5.The learned counsel would rely upon the judgment of this Court in Neeyamo Enterprises Solutions Private Limited vs Commercial Tax Officer(State Tax)(Intelligence), Madurai, (2025)36 Centax 341 Madras) The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment in S.S Communications vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Kumbakonam Town Assessment Circle, Kumbakonam Town, (W.P(MD)No.22420 of 2024). For the proposition that in the absence of finding that there is evasion of taxes or by reason of fraud, misstatement or suppression of fact, the authorities cannot invoke Section 74 of the Act.

6.The learned counsel would reiterate that either in the show cause notice or in the assessment order, there is no allegation of fraud or willful misrepresentation or misstatement is made. Therefore, the authorities ought not to have passed an order under section 74 of the Act.

7.Per Contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that i