M/S.Sri Velavan Fireworks vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) - 2
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Velavan Fireworks, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-2, Sivakasi-2 Assessment Circle. The original proceedings were initiated for imposing interest and penalty for delayed filing of GSTR-3B returns for the period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner had paid the quantified interest of Rs. 80,181/-. Subsequently, another order dated 26.04.2024 was passed by a different officer for the same issue and period, quantifying the interest as Rs. 80,183/-. The petitioner contended that this resulted in double taxation and sought to quash the impugned order.
Held
The Court held that two different orders were passed by two different authorities for imposing delay in filing GSTR-3B returns pertaining to the same period, April 2018 to March 2019. This clearly indicated duplication of proceedings, leading to double taxation. Consequently, the Court found that the impugned order passed by the respondent was not sustainable in law. The Court reasoned that such duplication of demand is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 was quashed. The ratio decidendi is that issuing multiple demands for the same tax liability arising from the same period and issue constitutes double taxation and is legally unsustainable. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.03.2024, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of being cryptic, double taxation, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and wholly without jurisdiction? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that two separate orders were issued by different authorities for the same period (April 2018 to March 2019) concerning the delay in filing GSTR-3B returns. The first order imposed interest of Rs. 80,181/-, which was paid. The second order, for the identical issue and period, imposed interest of Rs. 80,183/-. This duplication of proceedings leads to double taxation, rendering the impugned order unsustainable in law. Respondent's Contention: The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent confirmed the petitioner's submissions and fairly requested the Court to quash the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORDER This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the respondent.
Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that initially, the proceedings was initiated and the impugned order dated 23.03.2024 was passed by the respondent for imposing interest and penalty against the petitioner for the delay in filing the return in GSTR3B. For the delay period, viz., April-2018 to March-2019, the interest was quantified as a sum of Rs.80,181/- and the said amount was 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis also duly paid by the petitioner. However, once again, the respondent had passed an order dated 26.04.2024 by another Officer for the very same issue and very same period, whereby, the interest was quantified as a sum of Rs.80,183/-. Hence, he would contend that the said demand leads to double taxation and the same is not sustainable in law. Thus, he requests this Court to quash the impugned order dated 23.03.2024. 5. In reply, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent had confirmed the submissions made by the petitioner and fairly requests this Court to quash the impugned order.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
In the case on hand, two different orders were passed by two different Authorities for imposing delay in filing the GSTR-3B returns pertaining to very same period, viz., April 2018 to March 2019. Hence, it is clear that there is duplication of proceedings, which leads to double 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis taxation. When such being the case, as rightly contended by the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the respondent is not sustainable in law and hence, the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 22.03.2024 is hereby quashed.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed. 22.01.2026 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No nsa To The Assistant Commissioner (ST) - 2 Sivakasi-2 Assessment Circle C.T.Buildings, NGO Colony Satchiapuram, Sivakasi-626124. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., nsa & W.M.P(MD)No.1207 of 2026 22.01.2026 5/5 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.