M/S.Sri Velavan Fireworks vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Sri Velavan Fireworks, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.01.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sivakasi-2 Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that an earlier order dated 26.08.2022 had already been passed for the same period (April 2020 to March 2021) imposing interest and penalty for delay in filing GSTR-3B returns. The interest quantified in the earlier order was Rs. 71,963/-, which was paid. The impugned order for the same period quantified the interest as Rs. 68,025/-, leading to a claim of double taxation. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, confirmed the petitioner's submissions and requested the quashing of the impugned order.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 was not sustainable in law. The reasoning was that two different orders had been passed by different authorities for imposing delay in filing GSTR-3B returns pertaining to the very same period, April 2020 to March 2021. This clearly indicated a duplication of proceedings, which consequently led to double taxation. The Court found the petitioner's contention to be correct. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 was quashed. The operative direction was to quash the impugned order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 06.01.2023, passed by the respondent for the period April 2020 to March 2021, is sustainable in law, given that a prior order for the same period and issue was already passed and complied with by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order constitutes double taxation and is therefore illegal and unsustainable. They relied on the fact that an earlier order dated 26.08.2022 had already addressed the delay in filing GSTR-3B returns for the period April 2020 to March 2021, and the imposed interest of Rs. 71,963/- was duly paid. The subsequent demand for the same period and issue, quantified at Rs. 68,025/-, amounts to a duplication of proceedings. Respondent's arguments: The respondent, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, confirmed the petitioner's submissions and fairly requested the Court to quash the impugned order, acknowledging the duplication of proceedings.
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 an order dated 26.08.2022 was passed imposing interest and penalty against the petitioner for the delay in filing the return in GSTR3B. For the delay period, viz., April-2020 to March-2021, the interest was quantified as a sum of Rs.71,963/- and the said amount was also duly paid by the petitioner. 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis However, once again, the respondent had passed the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 by the respondent for the very same issue and very same period, whereby, the interest was quantified as a sum of Rs.68,025/-. 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 06.01.2023. 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 2020 to March 2021. 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 06.01.2023 is hereby quashed.
In the result, this writ petition is allowed. No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are 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)Nos.1232 & 1234 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.