Tvl.PUNITHA ANTONY STORE vs The State Tax Officer (Rovin

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49997

W.P(MD)No.15204 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Dated: 08.06.2026

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

W.P(MD)No.15204 of 2026
and
W.M.P(MD)No.11386 of 2026

Tvl.Punitha Antony Store,
Represented by its Proprietor Rajaprakash
GSTIN 33BAYPR8468J1ZL
No. 10/1061-1
Tenkasi Main Road
Pavoorchatram
Tirunelveli - 627808 ... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Tax Officer (Roving Squad -2),
O/o The Joint Commissioner (ST) (Intelligence Wing),
Tirunelveli Division,
Commercial Taxes Buildings,
Tirunelveli. ...Respondent

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu
For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajagopalan
Government Standing Counsel

Prayer: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN 33BAYPR8468J1ZL/2023-24 dated 13.01.2026 for the assessment year 2023-24 passed by the respondent under section 74 of TNGST Act 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, barred by limitation, non speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording opportunity of being heard or pass such further or other orders as this Honble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice.

ORDER

This writ petition challenges the impugned order dated 05.02.2026 which is an assessment order passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act 2017.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Standing Counsel representing the revenue.

3. By the impugned order, the assessment was made because the petitioner did not utilise the opportunities provided and not filed documentary evidence. The discrepancies and grounds on which the assessment order was issued, the dealer’s explanation on merits, and the reasons for not participating in the assessment proceedings are summarised briefly and presented in a table below:

Discrepancies found/Grounds on which the order is passed	Explanation offered by the Assessee on merits	Explanation for not availing the opportunity
The respondent raised a demand of Rs. 76,76,650/-under Section 74 on the grounds of GSTR-2A vs GSTR-3B mismatch, non-reversal of ITC on supplier credit notes, bank receipt differences, interest liability and purchase-related discrepancies. The respondent treated the same transactions under multiple heads such as lesser availment of ITC, excess claim of ITC, purchase omission and turnover suppression. Gross bank credits were also treated as taxable turnover without segregation of non-GST receipts.	Mainly, the bank credits included loans, advances, financial assistance and other non-GST receipts which cannot be treated as taxable turnover. The demand is therefore based on overlapping computations, double reversal and non-verification of records rather than any actual suppression of taxable turnover. The respondent has duplicated the very same transactions under different labels, resulting in artificial inflation of tax demand. Once the respondent himself records lesser availment of ITC, there cannot simultaneously be an allegation of excess availment of ITC on the same transactions. The allegation regarding non-reversal of supplier credit notes is erroneous since the corresponding ITC adjustment is automatically reflected in the GST portal and separate manual reversal would result in double taxation.	The petitioner had fully depended upon a part-time accountant due to lack of GST knowledge and absence of direct portal access. Upon receipt of notices, the petitioner was in the process of collecting voluminous records including purchase accounts, GSTR reconciliations, bank statements and books of accounts. Since the regular accountant was unavailable and the proprietor had to travel outside the station for a business purposes, written adjournment request dated 18.08.2025 was submitted seeking reasonable time to furnish a detailed reply. Without granting opportunity reconciliation effective for and production of records, the respondent proceeded to finalize the assessment mechanically.

4. Considering the nature of the discrepancies noted, the explanation provided by the assessee and the reason given before this Court for not availing the opportunity, I believe that an opportunity can be granted to the assessee to present their submissions and produce the relevant supporting documents before the respondent assessing officer. This Court has been extending such opportunities on equitable grounds; however, under appropriate conditions. Since it is contente

Click Here to Read the rest of this document