M/S.Abijith Associates vs. Deputy Commissioner (Appeals State)

The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.12.2025, which is an order of assessment passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 2.The crux of submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed a reply and also produced documents to satisfy the respondents that the discrepancies proposed in the show cause notice cannot stand. With reference to the major items, the reply of the petitioner has already been accepted. With reference to availing of input tax credit, the petitioner has pleaded that, after realizing the error, the same was already reversed. Inspite thereof, interest and penalty have been mulcted. The question, therefore, is whether, when the petitioner had voluntarily reversed the input tax credit, the petitioner should also be mulcted with the penalty. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis With reference thereto, the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner were not properly put forth and were also not considered by the authority. 3.The learned Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the order has been passed with due application of mind and all the points raised by the petitioner has been duly considered, and appropriate orders have been passed. The petitioner also did not file any appeal within time. 4.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 5.As rightly contended that the impugned order is dated 04.12.2025 and the period of four months for filing the appeal has already expired. However, considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in respect of the discrepancy pointed out relating to availing excess input tax credit, the petitioner's case is that he had voluntarily reversed the same, it was for the petitioner to plead the circumstances in detail, and it was for the 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis authority to consider the same in the manner known to law. Since the said exercise has not been done, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted an opportunity, especially, the impugned order imposes only the liability of interest and penalty alone on the petitioner. In view thereof, the same can also be ordered on equitable considerations by imposing an additional condition to deposit 25% of the sum that is demanded by the impugned order. 6.In view thereof, this Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:- i. Within four weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order, the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount demanded by the impugned order; ii. Upon such deposit, the impugned order dated 04.12.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter shall stand remanded back to the file of the third respondent; iii. It will be open for the petitioner to file such additional reply and documents in support of his claim and it is for the third respondent to consider the issue afresh and pass orders in accordance with law. 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis iv. Since the impugned order of assessment is set aside, any attachment of the bank account made pursuant to the impugned order shall stand raised. v. No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition shall stand closed.