Case Law Details
Sri Pavithra Agencies Vs Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal) (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court dealt with a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 26.12.2025 passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act. The petitioner, a trader primarily dealing in exempt goods such as petroleum products, contended that only a minimal and negligible portion of its business involved taxable goods like rubber and lubricant oils falling within the GST regime. Despite declaring its turnover as exempt, the assessing authority did not accept the claim and passed the impugned order.
The respondent argued that it was the responsibility of the assessee to substantiate the exemption claim with proper documentary evidence, and in the absence of such evidence, the assessment order was justified. Upon examining the submissions and records, the Court noted that although the petitioner had filed a reply to the show cause notice, the order was passed primarily due to lack of supporting documents.
Considering the petitioner’s assertion that only a minimal portion of goods attracted GST, the Court found it appropriate to grant another opportunity to substantiate the exemption claim. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to submit an additional reply along with all relevant supporting documents within two weeks. The respondent authority was instructed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law after receiving the documents.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.12.2025.
2. On a perusal thereof, it can be seen that the same is an order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a trader in exempt goods (petroleum products ) and only certain minimal quantity of products such as rubber, lubricant, oils come within the GST regime. While so, when the petitioner’s total turnover was reported as an exempted turnover, the same is not accepted and the impugned order was passed.
3. The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that it is the duty of the assessee to prove before the Authority that the goods in question is an exempted good and in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of the claim, the assessment order has been passed.
4. Considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.
5. In view of the assertion made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only very minimal and negligible amount comes within the lubricant oil etc, which are within the GST regime, I am of the view that an opportunity can be granted to the petitioner even though the petitioner had filed a reply to the showcase notice. It is seen from the impugned order that only because no supporting documents are filed, the impugned order came to be passed.
6. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms:
(i) The impugned order dated 26.12.2025 shall stand set aside.
(ii) Within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the web copy of the order, without waiting for the certified copy of the order, the petitioner shall file such additional reply and also file all documents in support of his claim of exemption, more specifically, the document claimed by the respondent.
(iii) Upon filing of the said documents, the respondent shall consider the matter afresh and decide the matter in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
