Tvl. A P Mohan Kumar Engineering Contractor vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner challenged assessment orders and subsequent rectification orders, alleging double taxation due to the same turnover being considered in an earlier assessment. The petitioner claimed their rectification applications were dismissed without proper consideration.
Held
The Court found that the impugned assessment order and an earlier order indeed reflected the identical turnover amounts. Therefore, the petitioner was granted one more opportunity to present their case.
Key Issues
Whether the assessment order and subsequent rectification orders were passed without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions due to alleged double taxation.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 161
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 02.08.2024 which is an order of assessment passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, the orders dated 31.08.2024 and 01.12.2025, which are orders passed on the applications filed by the petitioner for rectification. 2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that it can be seen from the order of assessment that a turnover of Rs.74,94,516/- is taken into account by the impugned order. However, with reference to the self same turnover, earlier an order was passed on 12.07.2024 covering the very same amount. Therefore, the impugned exercise is nothing but double 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis taxation. When the application for rectification is filed, the same was again dismissed without any application of mind. 3.Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that if the same turnover has been taken into account on the earlier occasion, it was for the petitioner to have brought to the notice of the authorities when opportunity was given. The petitioner did not file any reply or produce those documents during the course of assessment. 4.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case. 5.On the face of it, upon perusal of the impugned order of assessment and the earlier order dated 12.07.2024, it can be seen that it reflects the identical turnover amounts which are taken into account for assessment and tax. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In view thereof, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled for one more opportunity. 7.The Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: i. The impugned orders dated 02.08.2024, 31.08.2024 and 01.12.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent. ii. Within two weeks of receiving the web copy of the order, the petitioner shall file such reply and produce all the documents including the order dated 12.07.2024 before the respondent and it is for the respondent to consider the matter afresh by giving due opportunity to the petitioner and pass orders in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 22.04.2026 NCC : Yes / No ps 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Commercial Tax Building, Aruppukottai. 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
, J.
ps
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.