M A N S Nadar And Co vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (St) (GST)

Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, it is observed that the impugned order is an order passed under Section 62 of the GST Act, 2017, as the petitioner did not file the monthly returns on the GSTN portal. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now ready to file the monthly returns.

The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the impugned order need not be challenged, as once the monthly returns are uploaded, reassessment will automatically be carried out in accordance with Section 62(2) of the GST Act, 2017. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by both sides and perused the material records of the case.

When the petitioner failed to file the returns within the stipulated time, an order was passed under Section 62(1) of the Act. Subsequently, now that the petitioner is willing to file the returns, even though it is true that the petitioner is dealing with exempt goods, namely salt, the petitioner is still required to pay the requisite interest and late fee as per Section 62(2) of the Act. Thereafter, the matter will be considered by the appropriate authorities in accordance with the law. 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

With the liberty to furnish the returns kept open to the petitioner, as mandated under Section 62(2) of the Act, the writ petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 27.04.2026 Neutral Citation: No rgm 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To 1. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Reserve Line Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

The Assistant Commissioner (ST-1), Tuticorin-III Assessment Circle, Tuticorin-III, No.6R, North Cotton Road, Thoothukudi, Tamil Nadu – 628 001. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY