Pee Yem Margin Free Market vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)
Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.PEE YEM MARGIN FREE MARKET, represented by its Proprietor M.Ravichandran, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17/02/2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kuzhithurai Assessment Circle. This order was issued for the tax period 2020-2021 under Section 73(9) of the TMGST/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner had received a notice in DRC-01 on 25/11/2024 and subsequent personal hearing notices for dates including 20/01/2025, 04/02/2025, and 14/12/2025. However, the petitioner failed to respond to the DRC-01 notice or appear before the respondent, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner claimed that approximately 95% of the disputed tax had been recovered on 05/07/2025, a fact the respondent could not confirm.
Held
The Court, taking a consistent view in similar matters, decided to quash the impugned order subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in cash, with any amount already recovered on 05/07/2025 to be adjusted. The impugned order was to be treated as an addendum to the Notice in DRC-01 dated 25/11/2024. The petitioner was granted 30 days from the receipt of the order to file a reply, along with the pre-deposit of 25%. The respondent was then directed to proceed further and pass appropriate orders within three months after hearing the petitioner. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 17/02/2025, passed under Section 73(9) of the TMGST/CGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed as illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction, given the petitioner's failure to respond to notices and appear for hearings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner sought to quash the order, arguing it was illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They also sought a direction for the respondent to issue a fresh notice and pass an assessment order after affording sufficient opportunity. The petitioner claimed that a significant portion of the disputed tax had already been recovered. Respondent's Contention: The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate, was unable to confirm the petitioner's claim regarding the recovery of disputed tax.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
WP(MD)No.23503 of 2025 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.08.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN W .P(MD)No.23503 of 2025
and WMP(MD)No.18466 of 2025
Tvl.PEE YEM MARGIN FREE MARKET, Rep. By its Proprietor M.Ravichandran, GSTIN 33AAUFP5104G1Z9 14 C 1, Bus Stand, Kuzhithurai, Kuzhithurai Post, Kanniyakumari-629 163. : Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Kuzhithurai Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Kuzhithurai. : Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file
of the respondent
in GSTIN: 33AAUFP5104G1Z9/2020-21, dated 17/02/2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without juri iction and direct the respondent to issue notice to the petitioner then pass an assessment order afresh after affording an sufficient opportunity within such time as may be directed by this court or pass such further or other orders. 1/5 h
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
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.