Aboobucker Siddiq vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST)
Original PDF →No AI summary yet for this judgment.
Before: and Dr.S.V.K.S.Thangaraj Salai,
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 29.04.2025. 2.The impugned order is an ex-parte order of assessment passed under section 74 r/w section 63 and 50(i) of the TNGST Act. It is seen that the petitioner is a dealer in second hand mobile phones. Since the petitioner did not register himself and also failed to file returns. Considering the petitioner's total turnover, the tax liability is determined and also interest and penalty is now levied. When Show cause notice was served on the petitioner, the petitioner did not file any reply. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely upon Rule 32(5) of the Goods and Services Tax Rules, 2017, it is his claim that when the petitioner is dealing with second hand goods, it is only the margin, which is taxable. He Would also further submit that no input tax credit is also claimed. Therefore, according to him, assessment on the entire turnover is erroneous in law. 4.Per Contra, the learned Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is for the petitioner to have availed an opportunity when showcase notice was issued and placed such records before the Authority to claim that he is only a dealer in second hand goods as well as the claims now barred by him. 5.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side where is the material records of the case. 6.Considering the fact that the petitioner claims himself to be a small scale dealer in second hand goods and considering the reasons mentioned in 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition for not availing the opportunity, and the overall facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment in earlier cases, I am of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits. Normally, this Court imposes the condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. However, considering the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner under Rule 32(5), the same is not imposed in the instant case. 7.In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms: (i)The impugned order dated 29.04.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter stands remanded back to the file of the second respondent for fresh disposal. (ii)The petitioner shall appear before the 2nd respondent without fail and submit his reply and produce such document in proof of his claim and it is for the second respondent to pass orders afresh. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis (iii)The petitioner shall file a reply and submit the documents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order. (iv) No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 25.06.2026 NCC:Yes/No sji To The State Tax Officer (FAC), Kuzhithalai Assessment Circle, Kuzhithalai, Karur District. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. sji
2026 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.