Assessment orders must consider claims thoroughly and assign reasons; lack thereof warrants remand.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 15.04.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY and W.M.P(MD)No.8261 of 2026 Tvl.Cryochem Gases, Rep. by its Partner A.Lakshmanan, GSTIN 33AAQ6039F1ZG, No.75, C/1, 1^st Floor, Alsa Complex Salai Road, Trichy. ... Petitioner Vs.

The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Trichy. ...Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a WRIT OF CERTIORARI, calling for the records in the impugned Order in GSTIN Ref No 33AAQFC6039F1ZG/ 2021-22 dated 10.11.2025 issued by the Respondent and quash the same as it is without jurisdiction and clear violation of Statutory provisions or pass such other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Petitioner :Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondent :Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader ORDER The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

10.11.2025. The same is an order of assessment passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017.

2. Heard Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. The impugned Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner stating that the Input Tax Credit (ITC) claimed by the petitioner was found to be ineligible, as the same related to the construction of immovable property. The petitioner submitted a reply stating that the purchases were not made for the construction of any immovable property, but in relation to the foundation for gas tank equipment and electrical works for gas-filling equipment.

4. According to the petitioner, the same forms part and parcel of the machinery and the business activity of the petitioner, and therefore cannot be treated as construction of immovable property.

5. Despite the said reply, in the impugned order, the issue is merely extracted, followed by a reproduction of the petitioner’s reply, and, in conclusion, the respondent authority has simply stated that the taxpayer had admitted that ITC was availed on construction work, and therefore, such construction of immovable property is ineligible for input tax credit. Accordingly, the proposal in the Show Cause Notice has been confirmed.

6. The crucial aspect of the petitioner’s contention, namely whether the activity in question constitutes construction of immovable property or forms part of machinery/facilities used in the petitioner’s business (such as gas-filling equipment), has not been considered. No reasons have been assigned in this regard. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

7. However, it is also seen that, after receipt of the order, the petitioner did not file an appeal within the prescribed time. Therefore, while granting one more opportunity to the petitioner to put forth a detailed explanation, and directing the respondent to consider the same and pass a reasoned order, I am of the view that an appropriate condition may also be imposed on the petitioner.

8. In any event, if the petitioner establishes his claim, the amount already deposited may be adjusted towards any other dues. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:-

i. The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order.

ii. Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 10.11.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter shall stand remanded to the file of the respondent.

iii.It is open to the petitioner to file an additional reply along with supporting documents and to avail the opportunity of p