M/S. Amma Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s.Amma Enterprises, represented by its proprietor Subramanian Shunmugam, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tuticorin II Assessment Circle. The petitioner claims to be engaged in the sale of exempted products, namely chicken and vegetables. The petitioner had filed monthly and annual returns but failed to respond to intimations in ASMT 10 and DRC 01 A. Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued, to which the petitioner also did not respond, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel argued that the proprietor is semi-literate and was unaware of the notices due to dealing only in exempted goods.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court noted that the petitioner claimed to deal in exempted products and failed to respond to notices due to being semi-literate. The Court observed that in similar circumstances, authorities have closed cases after returns were filed and intimations were not responded to, especially when dealers are semi-literate or from the semi-organized sector. The Court opined that proceedings under Section 67 might have been more appropriate, followed by notices under Section 73 or 74. Considering the prima facie lack of contra-records to deny exemption, the Court inclined to remit the case. The petitioner is directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 06.09.2025 along with requisite documents within thirty days, treating the impugned order as an addendum to the show cause notice. The respondent shall pass a fresh order on merits within three months of receiving the reply. Bank attachment, if any, shall be vacated upon compliance. The respondent is at liberty to seize records and verify the nature of goods sold.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tuticorin II Assessment Circle, bearing Reference No.ZD331125259723G dated 14.11.2025, is illegal and liable to be quashed, considering the petitioner's claim of dealing in exempted goods and alleged lack of awareness of notices. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that being semi-literate, they were unaware of the intimations and notices issued by the respondent. They asserted that they dealt exclusively with exempted goods (poultry and vegetable products) and possessed supporting documents. The petitioner sought a remand for reconsideration. Respondent's contention: The respondent, represented by the counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, the factual narrative indicates that the respondent issued intimations and notices which were not responded to by the petitioner, leading to the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 67, Section 73, Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
Mr.R.Parthiban, learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu, takes notice for the respondent. 2.By consent, this writ petition is disposed of at the time of admission, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu appearing for the respondent. 3.The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order passed by the respondent bearing Reference No.ZD331125259723G dated 14.11.2025. 4.The petitioner claims that the petitioner is engaged in sale of exempted products, namely, chicken and vegetables. It is noticed that the petitioner has filed monthly returns and the annual returns. However, the petitioner failed to respond to the intimation in ASMT 10 during the scrutiny of the returns filed by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has been issued with the intimation in DRC 01 A, which was not responded to. Finally, the petitioner 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis was issued with a show cause notice that preceded the impugned order, which has also not been responded to. 5.The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner is a semi literate person and is merely engaged in sale of poultry and vegetable products and was unaware of the intimations and the notices that preceded the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner has sufficient records to prove that the petitioner dealt only with an exempted goods and will produce necessary documents. 6.It is noticed that several cases under similar circumstances have been closed by the authority after returns were filed and during the scrutiny, intimations were issued, which have not responded by the dealers. Most of the dealers are either semi literate or from semi organized sector. Proceedings under Section 67 ought to have initiated by causing an investigation and by seizing the records. Thereafter, a notice either under Section 73 or under Section 74 or presently under Section 74 for the period after 2024-25 could have been issued. 3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Considering the fact that prima facie there are no contra records to show that the petitioner is otherwise not entitled to the exemption, I am inclined to remit the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits. 8.Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the respondent bearing Reference No.ZD331125259723G dated 14.11.2025 is hereby quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner filing a reply to the show cause notice in GST DRC-01 dated 06.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 as an addendum to the show cause notice dated 06.09.2025, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 months of such reply. 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. 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
It is made clear that the bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the filing of a reply to the show cause notice dated 06.09.2025 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 issue due notice on the petitioner. 13.It is open for the respondent to seize the records and verify as to whether the petitioner was indeed engaged in sale of poultry and vegetable products, which are exempted under notification issued by the Government. 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 30.07.2026 Internet : Yes / No mm To Assistant Commissioner Tuticorin II Assessment Circle Tuticorin - 2 Tamilnadu. 6/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
mm
2026 7/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.