Tvl Kajah Enterprises (P) LTD. vs. The Assistant Commissioner (Inspection) (St-Iu)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Kajah Enterprises (P) Ltd., filed multiple writ petitions challenging orders dated 22.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Inspection) (ST-IU), Tirunelveli. The petitioner conducts business in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka, with separate GST registrations in each state. The impugned orders, however, included transactions related to Kerala and Karnataka, despite the petitioner's submission that these were handled under separate registrations. The petitioner argued that the respondent authority failed to consider this vital submission regarding jurisdiction over transactions in other states. The respondent contended that the petitioner's reply did not mention transactions in other states.

Held

The Court held that the impugned assessment orders were passed with a total non-application of mind. It was admitted that the petitioner company conducted business in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Karnataka, with separate registrations in each state. The Court reasoned that transactions pertaining to Kerala and Karnataka would naturally be disclosed in the registrations made in those respective states and could not have been disclosed in the returns filed for Tamil Nadu. Therefore, the assessment orders, which included these inter-state transactions without proper consideration, were liable to be set aside. The Court set aside the impugned assessment orders for the period 2017-2023 and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file a reply within two weeks, and upon receipt, the respondent was to provide a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the respondent authority had the jurisdiction to adjudicate on business transactions pertaining to Kerala and Karnataka, given that the petitioner has separate GST registrations in those states? (Question of law turning on the territorial jurisdiction principles under GST law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the respondent, an authority in Tamil Nadu, lacked jurisdiction over transactions conducted in Kerala and Karnataka. They contended that these transactions were correctly reported under the respective state GST registrations and should not have been included in the assessment for Tamil Nadu. The petitioner emphasized that this crucial point was raised in their reply and rectification applications, but was not addressed in the impugned orders, indicating a non-application of mind. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent argued that the petitioner's reply did not contain any mention of transactions occurring in other states.