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) 39010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
DHANA LAKSHMI TRADERS – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD) No.7919 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

Remand for fresh GST assessment granting opportunity to substantiate exemption claim with documents.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an assessment order under S.73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, claiming exemption for dealing in paddy husk, which the authority rejected for lack of supporting documents like invoices. The court found the order deficient in affording opportunity and remanded for fresh consideration. No pre-deposit imposed due to exemption claim. Issue framed: whether the assessment order was cryptic and without proper hearing. Ratio: petitioner entitled to one more opportunity to produce documents despite prior failure, balancing procedural fairness without additional conditions. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside and remanded for fresh assessment after petitioner files reply and documents within two weeks.

Table of Content
1. challenge to gst assessment rejecting exemption for lack of documents. (Para 1 , 2)
2. grant additional opportunity without pre-deposit conditions. (Para 3)
3. set aside order and remand for fresh consideration. (Para 4)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 24.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017.

2. On a perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that when the petitioner claimed exemption in respect of its trade on the ground that it is dealing in paddy husk, the assessing authority rejected the claim on the ground that the petitioner failed to establish that the goods are exempt. It is further seen that though the petitioner had filed a reply, it did not file supporting documents, such as invoices etc., to substantiate the nature of the goods dealt with so as to claim exemption. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that if an opportunity is granted, the petitioner would produce all the necessary documents before the respondent.

3. Considering the submissions made and the reasons for not producing the documents at the time of enquiry, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted one more opportunity. Normally, on equitable considerations, this Court imposes additional conditions, such as payment of tax. However, since in the present case it is pleaded that the petitioner is dealing in an exempted category of goods, no further condition is imposed.

4. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:

i. The impugned order dated 24.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration.

ii. Within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of this order, the petitioner shall appear before the respondent and file an additional reply, if any and produce all documents in support of its claim, without fail.

iii. It is for the respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass orders in accordance with law.

iv. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

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