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) 42033

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. Saravanan, J
Pm Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (St) – Respondent
W.M.P.Nos.18250 and 18251 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.Sivasubramanian
For the Respondents: V.Prashanth Kiran

The court provides for de novo assessment by remitting the order back to the authority, conditional upon the petitioner's pre-deposit of 25% of the disputed tax, to ensure adherence to principles of natural justice and proper substantiation of claims.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order passed under the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, confirming a tax demand after rejecting the petitioner's reply regarding invoices received from a supplier alleged to be non-existent. The core issue involved whether the assessment proceedings were conducted in accordance with natural justice and whether the petitioner had adequate opportunity to substantiate its claim. The court observed that the petitioner's initial reply was skeletal and failed to adequately verify the supplier's existence. Relying on the petitioner's willingness to provide a pre-deposit, the court set aside the impugned order for de novo adjudication, balancing the need for tax compliance with the principles of natural justice, while keeping the burden of proof on the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of, remitting the matter to the respondent for a fresh order on merits subject to the petitioner making a 25% pre-deposit within thirty days.

Table of Content
1. assessment based on non-existent supplier allegations. (Para 4)
2. remand for denovo adjudication conditional on 25% pre-deposit. (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. procedural compliance and management of bank account attachment. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)

ORDER

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

3. The Petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order dated

13.08.2025, whereby proposal in Form GST DRC – 01 dated 10.06.2025 has been confirmed after considering the Petitioner’s reply dated 03.08.2025 and the reply that was filed by the Petitioner in Form GST DRC – 06 reads as under:-

“The Invoices are received from the N N Traders are attached for your kind reference.”

4. The impugned order records that further investigations and departmental inspections confirmed that Tvl.NN Traders was non-existent as its registered address and was not conducting any business. This was a key factor leading to the cancellation of its GST registration.

5. Considering the fact that the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made an following endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted hereunder:-

“I consent with payment of 25% of disputed tax.”

7. Considering the fact that the Petitioner’s reply is a skeletal and the invoices raised by the said territory, this Court is inclined to remit the case back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash or from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 10.06.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated

13.08.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.06.2025.

9. In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner if any, shall also stand automatically vacated.

10. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

11. In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today. 12. Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.

13. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations.

No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are 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