M/S. Eminent Textile Mills Private Limited vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.04.2025 and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh adjudication. The reasoning was that the demand confirmed by the impugned order, specifically concerning the non-reconciliation of ITC in the GSTR-9 annual return, was identical to the demand confirmed by the order dated 04.12.2025, which was already under challenge in W.P.(MD)No.22873 of 2026. The Court noted that in the earlier writ petition, an order was passed on 12.08.2026 directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication. The Court held that the fresh order to be passed by the respondent would be subject to the outcome of the appeal to be filed by the petitioner against the order dated 04.12.2025, as directed in W.P.(MD)No.22873 of 2026. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the order dated 04.12.2025 before the Appellate Authority, subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Eminent Textile Mills Private Limited, challenged an order dated 29.04.2025 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Rajapalayam. This order confirmed a demand of ₹12,52,628.00 for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022, comprising tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner contended that a significant portion of this demand related to the alleged non-reconciliation of Input Tax Credit (ITC) in their GSTR-9 annual return. The petitioner also stated that their business had closed and they were taking steps for revival. Crucially, an identical demand for the same issue was confirmed by a separate order dated 04.12.2025, which was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(MD)No.22873 of 2026. In that earlier writ petition, an order was passed on 12.08.2026 directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.04.2025, confirming a demand of ₹12,52,628.00 for the period April 2021 to March 2022, is liable to be quashed, particularly concerning the demand arising from alleged non-reconciliation of ITC in the GSTR-9 annual return? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the demand confirmed in the impugned order, specifically the part pertaining to the non-reconciliation of ITC in the GSTR-9 annual return, was identical to a demand confirmed by a separate order dated 04.12.2025. This earlier order was the subject of W.P.(MD)No.22873 of 2026, where the Court had directed a deposit of 25% of the disputed tax for de novo adjudication. The petitioner sought to quash the current impugned order on the grounds of this duplication and the pending adjudication in the related matter. Respondent's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (The Assistant Commissioner (ST)).