Tvl.Malik Hardwares vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Malik Hardwares, represented by its Proprietor Liagatali Abdulmalik, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated December 26, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivagangai Assessment Circle. This order confirmed a demand for CGST and SGST for the tax period April 2021 to March 2022, totaling Rs. 5,33,961/- each, including tax, interest, and penalty. The demand arose from a show cause notice dated September 24, 2025. The petitioner contended that they were engaged in selling exempted commodities, namely fuelwood and charcoal. However, the impugned order noted that Form GSTR-8A indicated all purchases were taxable and there were no inward supplies of taxable goods. Subsequently, Rs. 1,97,180/- of CGST and Rs. 1,98,892/- of SGST were recovered from the petitioner's Electronic Liability Ledger.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner had not properly substantiated their defense regarding the sale of exempted commodities, a substantial portion of the tax demand had been recovered after the impugned order was passed. The Court also noted that the reference to Form GSTR-8A in the impugned order appeared to be incorrect, and it could potentially relate to Form GSTR-2A, Form GSTR-2B, or Form GSTR-3B. Considering these factors, the Court was inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Authority. The Court directed that if the petitioner files an appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal without reference to the limitation period. The petitioner was advised to substantiate their defense before the Appellate Authority by producing necessary documents. The writ petition was disposed of with this liberty, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated December 26, 2025, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) is illegal and devoid of merits, warranting its quashing and a direction to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2021-22, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India? The petitioner argued that they were engaged in the sale of exempted commodities, fuelwood and charcoal, and therefore the demand raised was incorrect. They also pointed out a potential error in the reference to Form GSTR-8A in the impugned order, suggesting it might be a typo for Form GSTR-2A, Form GSTR-2B, or Form GSTR-3B. The respondent, represented by the Government Advocate (Taxes), confirmed that a substantial portion of the demand had been recovered and that the petitioner had not properly substantiated their defense. The respondent implicitly supported the impugned order by confirming the recovery of dues.
Sections Cited
Section 226
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
M/s.P.Sudarkodi Natchiyar, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice for the respondent.
This Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission with the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent.
The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the Impugned Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 26.12.2025 bearing reference in GSTIN 33ABRPA3982F1ZO/2021-22, whereby the proposal in the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 24.09.2025, for the tax period 2021–22 has been confirmed, after considering the petitioner's reply. 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
By the impugned order, the following demand has been confirmed against the petitioner: S.No Tax period Act Tax Interest Penalty Total
Apr-2021 to Mar-2022 CGST Rs.3,02,652/- Rs.2,01,044/- Rs.30,265/- Rs.5,33,961/- SGST Rs.3,02,652/- Rs.2,01,044/- Rs.30,265/- Rs.5,33,961/-
It is noticed that as against the above demand confirmed, a sum of Rs.1,97,180/- has been recovered from the petitioner's Electronic Liability Ledger towards the CGST liability and a sum of Rs.1,98,892/- has been recovered towards the SGST liability during April and May 2026. 6. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent also confirms the same.
Thus, almost 64% of the demand confirmed has been recovered. As against the impugned order dated 26.12.2025, the petitioner ought to have filed an Appeal before the Appellate Authority to substantiate the defence taken against the impugned order. 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A reading of the impugned order indicates that the petitioner had defended the proceedings by stating that the petitioner was engaged in the sale of exempted commodities, namely, fuelwood and charcoal. However, the impugned order clearly records that on a perusal of Form GSTR-8A, all the purchases were found to be taxable and there were no inward supplies of taxable goods.
It appears that the petitioner has not properly substantiated the defence. Be that as it may, considering the fact that a substantial portion of the tax demand has been recovered after the impugned order was passed, I am inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to challenge the impugned order before the Appellate Authority within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Further, the reference to Form GSTR-8A in the impugned order appears to be incorrect. It could either relate to Form GSTR-2A, Form GSTR-2B or Form GSTR-3B, as the case may be. Be that as it may, it is for the petitioner to substantiate the defence taken before the Appellate Authority by producing 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis necessary documents.
In case the petitioner files an Appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the Appeal without reference to the limitation.
This Writ Petition is disposed of, with the above liberty. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Index : Yes / No 18.09.2026 Internet : Yes / No apd To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sivagangai Assessment Circel Sivagangai District 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.SARAVANAN, J.
apd
2026 6/6 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.