Case Law Details
Tvl. Punitha Antony Store Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court allowed the writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017, for the assessment year 2024–2025. The petitioner contended that proceedings ought to have been initiated under Section 74A instead of Section 74. The respondent argued that Form GSTR-1A had initially been issued under Section 74A and that the reference to Section 74 in the final order was only an inadvertent error. The Court held that an incorrect statutory reference alone would not invalidate proceedings if it was merely accidental. However, the impugned order imposed a 100% penalty applicable under Section 74, whereas proceedings under Section 74A would attract only a 50% penalty. The Court therefore found that the error was not merely inadvertent, quashed the order dated 13.01.2026, and granted liberty to the respondent to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with Section 74A of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 13.01.2026. The same is passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act
2017.
2. Heard Mr. N. Sudalaimuthu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.R.Parthiban, learned Government Standing Counsel who takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. The contention on behalf of the petitioner is that when the proceedings are initiated for the assessment year 2024–2025, the authorities can carry out the assessment only under Section 74A of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and not under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent submitted that, as a matter of fact, Form GSTR-1A was initially issued only under Section 74A of the said Act, and merely because an incorrect provision of law was quoted in the final order, the same would not invalidate the proceedings. According to the respondent, it was only an inadvertent error.
5. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
6. If it is merely a case of quoting an incorrect provision of law inadvertently, the same would not invalidate the proceedings. However, on a perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that a penalty at the rate of 100% has been imposed as if the order had been passed under Section 74 of the Act, whereas, if the respondents had exercised their power under Section 74A of the Act, only a 50% penalty would have been levied. Therefore, I am not in a position to conclude that this is merely an error in mentioning the provision of law.
7. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms
i. The impugned order dated 13.01.2026 shall stand quashed. The respondent is entitled to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law under Section 74-A of the Act.
ii. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
