Eeya Metals And Alloys PVT Lts vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

EEYA METALS AND ALLOYS PVT LTS, SY. NO. 129, INDUSTRIAL PARK, THATIPARTHY VILLAGE, THOTTAMBEDU MANDAL, BHAVANI SANKARA PURAM,

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF ST, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

M/S VINOTH ENTERPRISES, GROUND FLOOR, NO. 4/91, MARUTHANKAKURICHI, KULUMANI MAIN ROAD, SATHANUR, EIGIRIMANGALAM, SEERATHOPPU, TIRUCHIRAPAPALLI, TAMIL NADU -620 102

M/S N A TRADERS, 32/7, BAJANI KOIL STREET, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600 050. 5. M/S RAMAN TRADERS, PLOT NO. 53, METTUR 3RD STREET, SOORAPATTU AMBATTUR TALUK, TIRUVALLUR, CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU-600066. 6. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE (CT) DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI-110001. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the inaction on the part of the 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent -Deputy Commissioner in not providing the material collected by them from the Tamil Nadu GST authorities and also blocking the ITC for no reason in spite of the replies filed by the Petitioner and requests made by the Petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, unfair, unethical and contrary to the provisions of the GST Law, violative of principles of natural justice, and vioaltive of articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 265 and 300-A of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to release the blocked ITC of Rs. 1,84,45,616/- and to set aside the notice issued by the 1st Respondent dated 14-08- 2025 coupled with endorsement dated 25-08-2025 and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the Respondents 1 & 2 to release the blocked the ITC and permit the Petitioner to do the business activity till the disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

Aggrieved by the said notice, dated 14.08.2025; freezing of the input tax credit ledger of the petitioner; and the refusal of the 1st respondent to furnish the material to the petitioner, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

The learned Government Pleader for Commercial Tax, on instructions, submits that the 1st respondent had been supplied with certain additional information by the Tax Authorities of other States, and such information cannot be divulged inasmuch as this information was obtained under a special drive and the source of information and the contents of the said information cannot be given out.

The stand of the respondents cannot be accepted by this Court, on the simple ground that a person who is adversely affected by any order or proceedings of the Authority, is entitled to agitate against such an order and for that purpose, the affected person is entitled to be served with all the material which is used against him. In the absence of such service of material and opportunity of rebutting the contentions of the authorities, there would be a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

In the circumstances, it would only be appropriate that the petitioner is furnished with the material on the basis of which the sum of Rs.1,79,50,000/-, is sought to be recovered from him.

As far as the challenge to the notice, dated 14.08.2025 is concerned, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere with the said notice as the said notice is only a show-cause notice and the petitioner would be given an opportunity of rebutting the allegations in the show-cause notice.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that the business of the petitioner had come to a standstill and the petitioner is unable to comply with all the statutory requirements of filing returns, etc. and that violation of such requirements entail adverse consequences on the petitioner, including levy of penalty, interest and late fee.

Though the said contention merits consideration, the fact remains that severe allegations are being made in relation to the activities of respondents 3 to 5, on the basis of which the petitioner is said to be mulcted for recovery of large sum of money. In such circumstances, it would only be appropriate to direct an early closure of the entire issue, for the aforesaid reasons.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of, with the following directions: 1) The 1st respondent shall furnish the material on the basis of which the sum of Rs.1,79,50,000/- is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. 2) This information shall be furnished to the petitioner, within a period of one (01) week from today. 3) Upon receipt of such information, the petitioner shall have an opportunity of one (01) week to file his response to the show-cause notice, dated 14.08.2025. 4) The 1st respondent shall thereupon give an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass orders after considering the objections raised by the petitioner and the material placed by the petitioner before the 1st respondent. 5) This entire exercise is to be completed within a period of three (03) weeks from today. Failure to complete the said process would automatically result in the attachment of the credit ledger of the petitioner being raised and the petitioner would be entitled to utilize the credit available in the credit ledger. 6) It is further made clear that the material furnished to the petitioner shall be kept confidential and the petitioner shall not divulge or disclose any of the said material to any other person.

2025