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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 38586

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
S.Vijaya Dharmaraj – Appellant
Versus
Deputy State Tax Officer, Nagercoil-2, Kanyakumari District – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8407 and 8408 of 2026



Advocates:
For Petitioner: Mr.J.Sivaram
For Respondent: Mr.R.Sureshkumar Additional Government Pleader

Remand GST assessment for considering S.16(5) amendment and notifications on belated returns and ITC.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an assessment order under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, citing discrepancies in ITC claims and belated return filings. Court noted amendment to Section 16(5) and relevant notifications not considered by the assessing authority. Court found opportunity for response was not adequately availed. Issues framed around validity of assessment ignoring statutory amendments and notifications. Ratio decidendi emphasized remand for fresh consideration incorporating legal amendments and submissions. Impugned order set aside, matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Table of Content
1. challenges gst assessment order under s.73. (Para 1)
2. petitioner cites s.16(5) amendment and notifications. (Para 2)
3. remand for fresh consideration without deposit condition. (Para 3 , 4)

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.08.2024. The same is an order of assessment passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Noting certain discrepancies, including the excess claim of ITC and belated filing of returns, etc., the impugned order came to be passed.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as far as the belated filing of the returns, the same is covered by an amendment to Section 16 by the insertion of Section 16(5), which is not taken into account by the respondent. Even with reference to other claims, the learned counsel would submit that the issue is covered by certain notifications issued by the respondent.

3. I have also considered the reasons for not availing the opportunity. I am of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner. Normally, this Court imposes a condition to deposit 25%, but however, considering the fact that the major portion of the order is argued to be covered by the amendment to Section 16, no additional condition is imposed.

4. In view thereof, the Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms: (i) The impugned order dated 19.08.2024 shall stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration;

(ii) Within two weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of the order, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent and file such additional reply and documents in support of his claim and it is for the respondent to consider all the issues, both facts and law and pass orders afresh.

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

17.04.2026 sji NCC: No To The Deputy State Tax Officer, Nagercoil-2, Kanyakumari District.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.

sji and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.8407 and 8408 of 2026

17.04.2026

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top