Tvl. Sri Balaji Metal Trading Vs Deputy State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court, by a common order, disposed of two writ petitions concerning an assessment order dated 15.08.2024. A portion of the total demand of Rs.7,23,584/- related to Section 16(4) of the TNGST Act/CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner stated that the amount relating to this issue, Rs.2,98,748/-, had been paid on 12.09.2022 and 16.09.2022, and contended that the amount was liable to be refunded following insertion of Section 16(5) by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2024 [Act No.15 of 2024], dated 16.08.2024, with effect from 01.07.2017. The petitioner relied upon the fact that returns for February 2020 and March 2020 had been filed on 18.12.2020 and 21.12.2020 respectively. A rectification application filed under Section 161 of the TNGST Act, 2017 was rejected on 11.03.2025, which the petitioner challenged. The petitioner also submitted that the appellate remedy under Section 107 had become redundant due to limitation. The Revenue opposed the writ petitions, relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440, and contended that an alternate statutory remedy was available against the rectification order. The High Court found that the rectification application had been rejected summarily without discussion. It therefore quashed the order dated 11.03.2025 and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order after considering the petitioner’s submissions on merits. W.P.(MD) No.16343 of 2025 was disposed of, while W.P.(MD) No.16344 of 2025 was allowed. No costs were awarded.
Cases Discussed
- Assistant Commissioner (CT), LTU, Kakinada and others vs. Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Health Care Limited, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 440 — relied upon by the respondent in opposing the writ petitions on the issue of the statutory appellate remedy and limitation.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
