Case Law Details
Roundwell Raja Water Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The writ petition challenged an assessment order dated 15.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
The petitioner contended that it supplied water in containers transported through lorries to customers’ premises and that such supply was exempt from taxation. The respondent submitted that the assessment order was passed on the basis that the petitioner was supplying packaged drinking water, which falls within the taxable category.
The Madras High Court observed that mere supply of water through tankers, lorries, or similar means is exempt from tax. However, packaged drinking water sold with a brand name and packaging falls within the tax net. The Court noted that the assessment order had been passed because the petitioner failed to produce proof supporting its claim that it supplied only water through lorries and tankers.
The Court held that when a taxpayer claims an exemption, the burden lies on the taxpayer to establish eligibility for such exemption before the assessing authority. Therefore, it was for the petitioner to prove that the supply consisted only of water transported through lorries and tankers and not packaged drinking water.
Considering the circumstances, the Court granted the petitioner one more opportunity to substantiate its claim. The assessment order dated 15.12.2025 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent. The petitioner was directed to file an additional reply along with supporting documents within two weeks from receipt of the web copy of the order. The respondent was directed to consider the materials produced and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No costs were awarded.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 15.12.2025, which is an order of assessment passed under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
2. Heard Mr.S.Karunakar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is supplying water in containers taking it through lorries to the premises of the customers. Therefore, the entire supply is exempt from the purview of taxation.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader taking notice on behalf of the respondent would submit that the impugned order is passed on the ground that if the petitioner is supplying packaged drinking water and the same is within the tax net.
5. After hearing the arguments on either side, it is clear that if it is mere supply of water through tanker, lorries etc, the same is exempt from tax. However, if it is a packaged drinking water with brand name and package, then it comes within the tax net. It is seen that the impugned order is passed and since the petitioner did not produce any proof in respect of the same, it is settled law that if the petitioner claims exemption, it is for the petitioner to prove before the assessing authority that he is only supplying the water through his lorries and tankers and not in packages.
6. In view thereof, I am of the view that the petitioner can be granted one more opportunity. Since the entire goods are claimed to be exempt from the tax, no additional condition is imposed.
7. The writ petition is allowed on the following terms:-
i. The impugned order dated 15.12.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent.
ii. Within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of the order, the petitioner shall file an additional reply and produce such documents in support of its claim and it is for the respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
iii. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
