Tvl A D Creation Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court set aside the GST order dated 24.03.2026 and remanded the matter for reconsideration after noticing that, although a personal hearing had been offered earlier, no personal hearing was provided after the petitioner submitted replies dated 27.02.2026 and 24.03.2026. The petitioner had also contended that amounts remitted under the CGST and SGST heads pursuant to the Court’s earlier order dated 08.12.2025 had not been given credit in the impugned order.
The Court further noticed that the earlier order dated 26.07.2024 had raised SGST and CGST demand on the footing that the petitioner received intra-State supplies, whereas the impugned order dated 24.03.2026 raised an IGST demand in respect of the same transactions. It therefore considered it necessary to enable appropriation of the amounts previously remitted under the CGST and SGST heads towards the IGST demand. At the same time, the Court took note of the petitioner’s apparent failure to submit documents called for by notice dated 22.01.2026 and the fact that this was the second round of litigation.
Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside subject to conditions. The amounts already remitted under the CGST and SGST heads pursuant to the order dated 08.12.2025 were directed to be appropriated towards the IGST demand, with the petitioner required to submit appropriate authorisation, including a refund request if procedurally necessary. The petitioner was also directed to remit an additional 25% of the tax demand under the impugned order within thirty days from receipt of the Court’s order.
After compliance with these conditions, the respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within five months. The writ petition was disposed of, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed and no order as to costs was made.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
An order dated 24.03.2026 is assailed primarily on the ground that no personal hearing was provided after the petitioner’s replies dated 27.02.2026 and 24.03.2026.
2. Adverting to the two replies, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order reflects that no personal hearing was given thereafter. He also submits that amounts remitted by the petitioner under the CGST and SGST heads in terms of order dated 08.12.2025 were not given credit to in the impugned order.
3. Ms. G. Dhana Madhri, learned Special Government Pleader (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. She submits that a personal hearing was offered pursuant to and in terms of order dated 08.12.2025. She adds that the petitioner did not submit relevant documents to establish movement of goods and that this is the second round of litigation.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that a personal hearing was offered prior to the petitioner’s reply, but not thereafter. The other aspect to be noticed is that order dated 26.07.2024 made a demand towards SGST and CGST on the basis that the petitioner had received intra-State supplies. In impugned order dated 24.03.2026, a demand towards IGST has been made in relation to the same transactions. In these circumstances, it is necessary to enable the appropriation of amounts remitted earlier under CGST and SGST heads towards the IGST demand under the impugned order. The petitioner appears not to have submitted documents called for in notice dated 22.01.2026. Considering this aspect and the fact that this is the second round of litigation, it is just and necessary to put the petitioner on additional terms. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner agrees to the appropriation of amounts remitted earlier under the CGST and SGST towards the tax demand under the impugned order and also agrees to remit an additional 25% of the tax demand under the impugned order as a condition for remand. An endorsement has been made on the bundle to that effect.
5. Considering all the above aspects, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration on the following terms:
(i) Amounts remitted earlier under the CGST and SGST heads pursuant to and in terms of order dated 08.12.2025 of this Court shall be appropriated towards the IGST demand under this order. The petitioner shall submit an appropriate authorisation in this regard, including a request for refund if procedurally necessary.
(ii) In addition, the petitioner shall remit 25% of the tax demand under the impugned order within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within five months from the date of compliance with the above conditions.
6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
