Tvl.Unique Multi Films Virudhunagar Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Unique Multi Films Virudhunagar Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Virudhunagar II Assessment Circle. The petitioner operates under GSTIN 33AAACU6603LIZD. The impugned order was passed pursuant to a show cause notice dated 26.06.2026, which raised five allegations and proposed tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner had filed a reply on 31.07.2025, denying the allegations and providing documentary evidence, including 100 credit notes for discounts received without GST. The petitioner also faced issues with online portal file size limitations and missed a personal hearing due to being out of station. The Assistant Commissioner dropped two of the five issues but proceeded with the remaining three.
Held
The Court held that the impugned order was unjustifiable because the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider the credit notes submitted by the petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioner had filed these documents physically due to online portal limitations regarding file size, yet the impugned order stated no documents were filed. Regarding the difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, the Court observed that duties were paid for the import of goods, reflected in April's records, even if not in March. The Court found that the Assistant Commissioner had not applied his mind to the documents submitted by the petitioner and that redetermination was required. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Assistant Commissioner was directed to consider all physically filed documents and the petitioner's statement regarding the actual payment date for imports, and to refrain from imposing interest for delayed reflection in GSTR-2A if payment was made in time.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.10.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) is liable to be quashed for failing to consider the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner, specifically credit notes for discounts and documents related to the difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner failed to consider the credit notes received for discounts without GST and the explanation regarding the difference between GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B, which was reflected in April's records. They argued that due to online portal limitations, documents were filed physically, but the impugned order erroneously stated no documents were filed. The petitioner also submitted that they missed the personal hearing due to being out of station and that 30% of the tax amount had already been recovered. Revenue's arguments: The Revenue, through the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that the Assistant Commissioner could not decide the issues as relevant documents were not filed. They further stated that if the matter were remitted back, the Assistant Commissioner would pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner's documents.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order of the second respondent dated 22.10.2025. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner concern is registered on the file of the respondents Department holding GSTIN 33AAACU6603LIZD. He further submitted that though the petitioner has filed its return, during the assessment year 2022-23, the 2nd respondent has issued a show cause notice dated 26.06.2026, by levelling 5 numbers of false and flimsy allegations and proposed to levy tax, interest and penalty. The petitioner filed its reply dated 31.07.2025, to the said show cause notice, explaining the fact and 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis denying the allegations of the 2nd respondent along with corroborative documentary evidences. The petitioner submitted 100 copies of credit notices received towards the discount without GST to the 2nd respondent and requested to drop the proposal to levy tax on the alleged difference between the profit and loss account. However, without considering the same, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as far as the alleged difference in ITC between the GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B is concerned, the payment was reflected in the April month and the 2nd respondent has not accepted the same, because the payment supposed to be made on or before 31st of the relevant financial year. Since it is reflected in the April month record, the 2nd respondent is not in a position to accept the same. He further submitted that since the online filing of reply in the portal does not allow to upload the file of size more than 5 MB, the petitioner filed the documents manually to the 2nd respondent along with the copy of the reply and objections. The 2nd respondent, without considering the same, passed the impugned order, which is unjustifiable. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the 2nd respondent has issued a personal hearing notice on 06.08.2025 to appear for personal hearing on 12.08.2025. But, since the petitioner was out of station, during the relevant point of time, he was unable to attend the same. In such circumstances, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order dated 22.10.2025. Further, the 2nd respondent has dropped the two issues out of 5 issues in the show cause notice. He would further submit that 30% of the tax amount has already been recovered. Hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order.
The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that since the relevant documents are not filed, they have not in a position to decide the issue. Therefore, they have confirmed the three issues while dropping the two issues. He further submitted that if the matter is remitted back, the 2nd respondent will pass a fresh order after considering the documents filed by the petitioner.
Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
On a perusal of the records, it is seen that the petitioner has filed the copies of credit notes. However, the same has not been considered by the 2nd respondent, while passing the impugned order. Since the said document is a voluminous document, they were not in a position to upload the same in the online portal, because, the online portal does not allow uploading the documents more than 5 MB. Hence, the petitioner filed the same physically. However, in the impugned order, the 2nd respondent stated that no document was filed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is unjustifiable.
As far as the difference between the GSTR-2A and GSTR-3B is concerned, on a perusal of the records, it is seen that relevant duties were paid with regard to the import of goods and the payment of duties have been reflected in the April month. But, in the impugned order, it is stated that the same is not reflected in the March month and therefore, they are not in a position to accept the same. Ultimately, as on the date of issuance of notice, entire amount has been paid. If at all there is any delay in payment, the official respondents can insist only to pay the amount. The concerned officers supposed to go through the documents produced by the petitioner. Without going 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis through the papers submitted by the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has passed the impugned order. In the present case, apparently, the 2nd respondent would not apply his mind and decide the matter. Therefore, this Court feels that redetermination in this matter is required. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the respondents for fresh consideration.
Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration. While reconsidering the issue, the 2nd respondent is directed to take into consideration of any document physically filed by the petitioner and arrive at a final conclusion with regard to the payment of tax. Further with regard to payment of tax at ICEGATE is concerned, there is delay in reflection in the GSTR-2A and the 2nd respondent is directed to take into consideration the statement filed by the petitioner in this regard and find out when actual payment was made by the concerned importer, since the same will be reflected in the GSTR-2A either in the same month or in the subsequent month. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is restrained to impose any interest for the delayed period, provided if it is only delay in reflection in relevant Form after due payment in time as per 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis law.
With the above observations, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 21.01.2026 vsm Index : Yes/No NCC : Yes/No To 1.The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, O/o. The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai – 600 005. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Virudhunagar II Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Madurai Road, Virudhunagr – 626 001. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. vsm W.P.(MD)No.1373 of 2026 21.01.2026 8/8 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.