Vinayak Enterprises vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and
This Writ Petition is taken up for hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for State of TN for the respondents.
The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned assessment in Form GST ASMT – 13 dated 28.02.2025 passed under Section 62(1) of respective GST enactments, 2017. 3. By the impugned order, the following tax has been confirmed against the petitioner: Abstract on Tax & Interest liabilities confirmed under Section 62(1), 50 of the GST Act, 2017 for the month of December – 2024 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Description Amount in rupees Interest to be paid CGST Tax due confirmed 1069181 SGST Tax due confirmed 1069181 Total Tax due confirmed 2138362 Tax paid Nil Balance to be paid 2138362
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed the return on 24.03.2026 stating that the petitioner is not liable to pay tax. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to deposit 25% of the disputed tax for remitting the case back to the second respondent. To that effect, he has made an endorsement, which reads as under: “Petition will pay 25% for the remand back.”
It is noticed that the filing of return on 24.03.2026 is long after the expiry of limitation prescribed under Section 62(2) of respective GST enactments. By this time, the petitioner may have a case to succeed, considering the fact that the petitioner has not participated in the proceedings, which is culminated in the impugned order. Hence, I am inclined to remit the case back to the second respondent to pass a fresh order recording the submission of the learned counsel 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis for the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Within such time, the petitioner shall file a reply to the proceedings by treating the impugned order as notice in DRC 01. 7. In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the second respondent shall proceed to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three (3) months thereafter, after hearing the petitioner.
In case the petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the attachment of the petitioner’s bank account shall also stand de-freezed.
In case the petitioner fails to comply with any of the conditions stipulated above, the respondents are at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above observations. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index : Yes / No 30.06.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To 1. The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin.
The Commercial Tax Officer, Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin Iii Circle, C.T.Buildings, 282 North Beach Road, Tuticorin – 628001. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2026 6/6 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.