M/S. Balaji Constructioins vs. The Commercial Tax Officer
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Balaji Constructions, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the first respondent, the Commercial Tax Officer. The impugned order appears to have fastened the GST default of a third respondent, also named M/s. Balaji Constructions, onto the petitioner. This action was taken in light of a communication dated 25.03.2024 from the second respondent, the Executive Engineer, Department of Water Resources, to the first respondent. The learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent acknowledged that there was confusion regarding this aspect, arising from the second respondent's communication.
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the first respondent. The Court noted the submission of the learned Special Government Pleader for the first respondent that there was confusion regarding the fastening of the GST default of the third respondent onto the petitioner, which arose from the communication issued by the second respondent. Consequently, the Court remitted the case back to the first respondent to pass a fresh order in lieu of the quashed order. The Court also clarified that if proceedings were to be initiated against the third respondent, the respondents were at liberty to proceed against them in accordance with law. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations, and no costs were awarded.
Key Issues
1. Whether the GST default of the third respondent was erroneously fastened onto the petitioner by the first respondent, contrary to law? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was illegal as it sought to hold them responsible for the GST default of another entity. The revenue (represented by the first respondent) conceded that there was confusion in the matter, particularly in light of the communication received from the second respondent. The revenue did not present any counter-arguments or rely on specific provisions, circulars, or precedents to justify the impugned order against the petitioner. The second respondent's role was primarily to provide information leading to the impugned order.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
__________ Page1 of 5 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29-09-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.21258 & 21259 of 2026 CNR:{HCMD011292622026} M/s. BALAJI CONSTRUCTIOINS Represented by its Partner, Vengadesan ..Petitioner(s) Vs
The Commercial Tax Officer Rajapalayam 1 Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Union Office Opposite, Tenkasi Mani Road, Rajapalayam – 17. 2. The Executive Engineer Department of Water Resources, Meal Vaipaaru Vadinilak Koottam, Rajapalayam.
M/s. BALAJI CONSTRUCTIONS Plot No.15, Karunakaran Illam, Kalai Nagar 3rd Cross Street, Kalai Nagar, Madurai. ..Respondent(s) Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent vide his Reference No. ZD3304242295161 dated 29.04.2024 and quash the same as illegal. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis __________ Page2 of 5 For Petitioner(s): Mr.M Iniyavan For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Parthiban Special Government Pleader (R1) Mr.S.
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.