Case Title: Jothi Virutchem Super Market v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Villupuram I Assessment Circle
Court: Madras High Court
Petition No.: W.P. No. 2557 of 2025 (with WMP Nos. 2875 & 2876 of 2025)
Date of Judgment: 28 January 2025
Category of Dispute: GST Assessment – Mismatch between GSTR-3B & GSTR-2A and Non-generation of E-way Bill
Relevant Sections: Section 68 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017; Rule 138 of the CGST/TNGST Rules, 2017
Facts of the Case (Para 2 – 2.1)
The petitioner, Jothi Virutchem Super Market, engaged in the business of groceries and provisions, was assessed for FY 2019–20 under GST. The assessment order dated 23.05.2024 alleged discrepancies including (i) mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, and (ii) non-generation of E-way bills for inward supplies, violating Section 68 and Rule 138.
After issuance of ASMT-10, DRC-01A, and subsequent reminders, the petitioner submitted a reply but could not substantiate it with documentary proof. The respondent confirmed the tax demand treating the reply as inadequate.
Questions for Determination (Para 2.1–3)
Whether the impugned assessment order was valid despite the petitioner’s claim that proper opportunity to furnish evidence and reconciliation was not granted, and whether the matter should be remanded for reconsideration.
Observations of the Court (Para 3–4)
The Court noted that the petitioner had shown willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax and sought one final opportunity to produce supporting materials. The Court relied on the earlier judgment in M/s. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (W.P.(MD) No. 11924 of 2024, dated 10.06.2024), where a similar relief was granted.
Considering both counsels’ consent, the Court directed conditional relief ensuring revenue safeguard and fair opportunity for the petitioner.
Judgment (Para 4(a)–(g))
-
The impugned assessment order dated 23.05.2024 was set aside.
-
The petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; any pre-deposit or recovered amount shall be adjusted.
-
Upon compliance, the impugned order will be treated as a show-cause notice, and the petitioner must file objections with supporting documents within four weeks.
-
The respondent shall reconsider and pass a fresh order after affording a personal hearing.
-
Failure to pay 25% or to file objections within time will restore the impugned assessment order automatically.
-
Any bank attachment or garnishee proceedings shall be withdrawn upon compliance.
No order as to costs was made.
Summary of Case Referred
| Case Name | Citation / Petition No. | Court | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| M/s. K. Balakrishnan, Balu Cables v. Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise | W.P.(MD) No. 11924 of 2024, dated 10.06.2024 | Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) | Assessment order remanded subject to deposit of 25% of disputed tax and opportunity of hearing |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment underscores the Court’s balancing approach—protecting taxpayer rights to natural justice while ensuring partial payment to secure government revenue. Businesses facing mismatches between GSTR-3B and 2A or procedural lapses like missing E-way bills can seek remand relief if they show readiness to comply and substantiate their claims with records.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
