M/S. Sri Saravana Constructions vs. The Assistant Commissioner
Facts
The petitioner, C. Saravanan, approached the High Court challenging an order. The parties informed the Court that the petitioner had agreed to pay 50% of the disputed tax, excluding the demand related to Section 16(4) of the GST enactments, as a condition for a fresh adjudication. However, the previous order dated 03.09.2026 incorrectly recorded this agreement. The present proceedings were listed for correction of this error in the earlier order. The Court was asked to rectify paragraphs 4 and 7 of the order dated 03.09.2026 to accurately reflect the petitioner's undertaking.
Held
The Court held that the order dated 03.09.2026 contained an error in recording the terms of the de novo adjudication. The petitioner's willingness to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax, specifically excluding the demand related to Section 16(4) of the respective GST enactments, was the agreed condition. The Court directed the Registry to correct paragraphs 4 and 7 of the previous order to accurately reflect this agreement. Consequently, the impugned orders were quashed, and the case was remitted back to the respondent for passing a fresh order, subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax (excluding the Section 16(4) demand) in cash from their Electronic Cash Register within thirty days of receiving a copy of the corrected order. No issue was expressly left undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, should correct an error in its previous order regarding the condition for de novo adjudication? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order dated 03.09.2026 contained a factual inaccuracy regarding the agreed-upon condition for de novo adjudication. Specifically, the petitioner was willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax, excluding the demand covered by Section 16(4) of the GST enactments, and sought correction of the order to reflect this accurately. Revenue/State's contention: The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue or state. However, the joint submission by the learned counsel on both sides indicates their agreement to the correction sought by the petitioner.
Sections Cited
Section 16(4)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
W.P.(MD) No.24460 of 2026 C.SARAVANAN
, J.,
This case is listed today under the caption 'for being mentioned'.
The learned counsel on both sides submit that the petitioner agreed to pay 50% of the disputed tax in respect of the demand other than that is covered by Section 16(4) of the respective GST enactments as a condition for de novo adjudication. However, in the order dated 03.09.2026, it has been wrongly mentioned and the same may be corrected.
In view of the same, Registry is directed to correct para Nos.4 and 7 of the order dated 03.09.2026 as follows:
“4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 50% of the disputed tax in respect of the demand other than that is covered by Section 16(4) of the respective GST enactments as a condition for de novo adjudication. “7. In view of the above, the impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order subject to the petitioner depositing 50% of the disputed tax in respect of the demand other than that is covered by Section 16(4) of the respectitve GST enactments, in cash from the petitioner's Electronic Cash Regis
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.