Ferrosco Industries Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal) (ST) & Others (Madras High Court)
Summary: The Madras High Court partly allowed the writ appeal of Ferrosco Industries Private Limited concerning alleged double taxation of turnover relating to its separately registered factory at Tirunelveli and registered office at Coimbatore. An assessment for April 2021 to March 2022 had been passed for the Tirunelveli factory on 21.04.2025 and challenged through a statutory appeal with the requisite pre-deposit. The company alleged that the Coimbatore assessment also included turnover already assessed at Tirunelveli. Its rectification petition dated 27.08.2025 referred to ₹64,29,38,464 as turnover already subjected to tax, but the Court expressly noted that the precise amount of overlap remained unclear. The assessing authority rejected rectification as an impermissible review and relied on the company’s failure to participate despite repeated opportunities during the original assessment. The writ court had directed reconsideration subject to deposit of 25% of the disputed tax.
The Division Bench held that, if established, double taxation of the same turnover constitutes a rectifiable mistake under Section 161 of the TNGST Act. Since the records were available with the Commercial Taxes Department, the records of both units had to be examined holistically, even where assessed under different charges, to ensure that the turnover suffered tax only once. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 only to the extent of the double-taxation issue and directed examination on merits. The appellant was permitted to appear before the second respondent on 22.10.2026 at 11.00 am without further notice, carrying a computation identifying the overlap. Fresh orders on that issue alone were directed within four weeks of the personal hearing, specified in the judgment as on or before 23.11.2026. Four weeks from the judgment date were granted to challenge the order dated 28.10.2025 on other issues in accordance with law. The appeal was partly allowed without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
The writ petitioner is the appellant and has challenged an order passed by the writ court on 06.04.2026 where the challenge was to an order of assessment dated 28.10.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer, Coimbatore under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Taxes Act, 2017 (Act).
2. The appellant is an assessee on the file of the respondent assessing officer/R2 and has two units, a factory in Tirunelveli and a registered office in Coimbatore. The appellant has obtained separate registrations under the provisions of the Act in respect of each unit.
3. For the period April, 2021 to March, 2022, an order of assessment had come to be passed on the factory in Tirunelveli on 21.04.2025. The appellant has filed a statutory appeal challenging that order with requisite pre-deposit, and the matter is stated to be pending before the appellate authority. While so, the assessment for the unit in Coimabtore was taken up by the assessing authority.
4. It is true that multiple notices have been issued to the appellant and the appellant has neither appeared nor facilitated the completion of assessment. It is thus that an order of assessment came to be passed by the respondents on 21.04.2025 where R2 has, according to the Appellant, included the turnover that is part of the assessed turnover qua the Tirunelveli unit.
5. Thus, the appellant filed a petition for rectification under Section 161 of the Act pointing to various rectifiable defects including the aspect of double taxation of turnover already included for assessment in the case of the unit at Tirunelveli. For the purposes of writ petition, Mr.R.Swarnavel, learned counsel for appellant, confines himself only to latter issue, being alleged double taxation.
6. In the petition dated 27.08.2025 seeking rectification, the appellant makes reference to a sum of Rs.64,29,38,464/- and, in general terms, avers that the aforesaid amount represents turnover that is already subject to tax. We are unclear as to whether this is the exact amount on which the unit at Tirunelveli has been assessed or what the overlap is.
7. Be that as it may, the assessing authority rejects the rectification petition being of the view that there were no rectifiable mistake and the relief sought would amount to review, impermissible under the Act. That apart, the assessing authority also notes that sufficient opportunities have been granted to the appellant in the course of the original assessment that had not been made.
8. These findings are relied upon by Mr.B.Sivaraman, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondents, who points out that the petition seeking rectification is nothing but a review in the guise of rectification where the appellants seek to re-open concluded assessment proceedings. He would also stress on the position that the appellant has not co-operated in the course of original proceedings and hence must abide by the directions of the writ court.
9. The writ court by its order dated 06.04.2026 had ultimately disposed the writ petition directing deposit of 25% of the disputed tax as pre-condition for de novo consideration. The matter was remanded to the second respondent for passing of an order on merits afresh. Since the challenge was to the order of rectification, the inference that we draw is that it would only be the rectification order that has been set aside.
10. On hearing the parties and on a perusal of the materials, we are of the considered view that the following directions would be appropriate.
11. As far as the question of double taxation is concerned, if the appellant assessee is in a position to establish the same, it does amount to a rectifiable mistake which ought to have been taken into account under Section 161 of the Act as the entirety of the records would be available with the Commercial Taxes Department. Even if the Coimbatore or Tirunelveli unit are assessed under a different charges, the records of the assessee should be looked at holistically in order to ensure that turnover suffers tax only in one point.
12. Hence the plea in the rectification petition relating to double taxation / double jepoardy and the specific argument that turnover brought to tax in the Tirunelveli unit has been brought to tax in Coimbatore should be looked into by the assessing officer on merits. To this extent, the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 is set aside.
13. In order to facilitate the above exercise, the appellant is permitted to appear before the second respondent on 22.10.2026 at 11.00 am without awaiting any further notice. Let the appellant keep handy a computation as to what the overlap is, between the turnover brought to tax in Tirunelveli and Coimbatore.
14. On hearing the appellant and considering the materials provided, the authority is directed to re-work the turnover and pass orders afresh on this aspect alone within four (4) weeks from date of personal hearing, i.e., on or before 23.11.2026. The appellant is granted a period of four (4) weeks from today to challenge order dated 28.10.2025 in regard to the other issues, in accordance with law.
15. This writ appeal stands partly allowed in terms of this order. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
