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 74r/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. 3.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. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Per Contra, the learned Government advocate 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 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. The 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 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. (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. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 16.03.2026 NCC:Yes/No Ns To 1.The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(GST) 4th Floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.S.V.K.S.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai-625 020 Camp Office at 1st Floor, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Sough High Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli-627 002. 2.The Assistant Commissioner(State Tax)-1, Office of Assessment Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin-1, Tuticorin-I, No.6R, North Cotton Road, Thoothukudi-628 001. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J. Ns and W.M.P(MD)Nos.5823 and 5825 2026 16.03.2026 5 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.