BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 11.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P(MD)No.6709 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.5559 of 2026 Tvl.T.Balasubramanian ... Petitioner Vs.

The State Tax Officer(Roving Squad-2)

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

Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tirunelveli. ...Respondent 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/2019-20 for the assessment year 2019-2020 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

ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

03.12.2025 passed for the assessment year 2019-2020.

2.In this case, it can be seen that when the petitioner who is engaged in the business of supply of bricks, cement, etc. Where duly filing returns, realizing that certain transactions were not reported. Through Form DRC-03 on 16.09.2023, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs.28,46,104/- being the tax due under CGST and SGST respectively, along with an interest amount of Rs.7,49,466/-. Thereafter an inspection was conducted in the year 2025. Between 17.02.2025 and 19.02.2025 show cause notice was issued on 27.03.2025 under section 74(1) of the TNGST Act, pointing out to the aforementioned difference in GSTR-3B, GSTR-1 and form 26AS and directing the petitioner to show cause as to why appropriate penalty and interest be levied. The petitioner appeared before the authority and submitted his reply. It is his contention that the case can never come under Section 74 of the Act, as there is no willful suppression or an intention to evade the tax that is alleged. The said contention is not accepted and the proposal as made in the show cause notice was confirmed in the impugned order as against which, the petitioner is before this Court.

3.Even though there is an appellate remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the jurisdiction of the authorities to invoke Section 74 of the Act, while the nature of transaction and the defect alleged can only fall under Section 73 of the Act.

4.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue would submit that when the petitioner had shown a different set of transaction in his income tax account in Form 26AS and has not disclosed the same to the TNGST authorities. Then the action is nothing, but willful suppression to evade tax, and therefore the authorities were right in invoking Section 74 of the Act. As a matter of fact, in the connected writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos. 6708 and 6710 of 2026, I have considered the rival submissions made on either side, and I have held as follows in the order:

“.....

10.Therefore, even though the facts of the present case may give a ground to the authorities, unlike the factual scenario in Neeyamo Enterprises, still, I am of the view that the show cause notice should expressly and clearly mention about the willfulness or the intention to evade the tax, the same should be made because the petitioner had actually paid the tax even before the issuance of show cause notice. In such a factual scenario, I am of the view that since the show cause notice or the impugned order that did not expressly record the intention to evade tax as also willful misstatement or suppression of facts, the present proceedings as such cannot spend. The matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent. It will be open for the petitioner to plead that it will only be a case under Section 73 of the Act and not under Section 74 of the Act. If the author