Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s AMK Athencottasan Muthamizh Kazhagam Man Power Services, represented by its Director R. Arul Kannan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the respondent’s order dated 25.05.2023.

The petitioner sought a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order and quash it as illegal, arbitrary and wholly without jurisdiction.

The impugned order had been passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017 on the ground that the petitioner had not filed the return within the time stipulated under the Act.

The petitioner subsequently uploaded/filed the return and contended that the tax authority was required to take the subsequently filed return into account and pass orders on that basis. The identity of the parties and the relief sought appear on page 1, while page 2 expressly records the Section 62 basis of the assessment and the competing submissions of both sides.

Issues Involved

The principal issues before the Madras High Court were:

  1. Whether an assessment order passed under Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for non-filing of returns within the prescribed time could continue to stand after the petitioner subsequently uploaded the return.
  2. Whether the respondent was legally required to take into account the return subsequently filed by the petitioner.
  3. Whether the matter should be reopened for reassessment after considering the filed returns.
  4. Whether the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 was liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to the State Tax Officer.
  5. Whether the principle stated in MANS Nadar and Co. vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and another, W.P.(MD) No. 12363 of 2026, applied to the petitioner’s case.
  6. Whether the department’s objection that the returns had not been filed in time was sufficient to sustain the existing Section 62 order despite the subsequent uploading of returns.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The learned counsel for the petitioner relied specifically upon the Madras High Court judgment in:

MANS Nadar and Co., represented by its partner Sivasubramanian vs The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST) and another, W.P.(MD) No. 12363 of 2026.

On the strength of that judgment, the petitioner argued that:

  • once the return had been filed, the respondent was required to take the return into account;
  • the tax authority had to pass orders based on the returns filed by the petitioner; and
  • the earlier assessment order could not be maintained without considering the subsequently uploaded return.

The petitioner’s argument was therefore not merely that the assessment should be cancelled outright, but that the subsequently filed returns must form part of the lawful reassessment exercise. These submissions are expressly recorded on page 2 of the judgment.

Respondent’s Arguments

The learned Government Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent, opposed the petitioner’s case by submitting that:

the returns were not filed in time.

Thus, the respondent’s position was based on the petitioner’s failure to comply with the statutory timeline for filing returns, which had originally led to the Section 62 assessment.

The judgment records this submission directly on page 2. No additional elaborate defence or separate factual contention by the respondent is recorded in the order.

Court Order / Findings

After considering the rival submissions and perusing the material records, the Madras High Court held that:

Once the petitioner has uploaded the return, thereafter it is for the respondent to take up the issue for reassessment and, as such, the impugned order cannot stand.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petition on the following terms:

  • the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 was set aside;
  • the matter was remanded back to the respondent;
  • the respondent was directed to take into account the returns filed by the petitioner thereafter;
  • the respondent was directed to deal with the matter in accordance with law and pass final orders;
  • no costs were awarded; and
  • the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

The decisive findings and operative directions are contained on page 3 of the judgment.

Important Clarification

This judgment should not be interpreted as holding that delayed filing of GST returns automatically extinguishes all tax liability, interest, penalty or other statutory consequences.

The precise holding is narrower and important:

  • the original order was passed under Section 62 because returns had not been filed within time;
  • the petitioner subsequently uploaded the return;
  • once the return was uploaded, the respondent had to take up the issue for reassessment;
  • therefore, the existing impugned order could not stand in its present form; and
  • the matter had to be reconsidered after taking the filed returns into account.

The High Court did not finally determine the petitioner’s tax liability on merits. It remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

A further important clarification is that the judgment does not state that mere late filing by itself gives an unconditional right to cancellation of every Section 62 assessment. The Court’s operative direction is to consider the returns filed thereafter and complete the matter lawfully on reassessment.

Sections Involved

Section 62 of the TNGST Act, 2017 – Assessment of Non-Filers of Returns:
The impugned order dated 25.05.2023 was expressly passed under this provision because the petitioner had not filed the return within the time stipulated under the Act.

Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned order.

Related statutory context – Section 62 of the CGST Act, 2017:
Section 62 under the GST framework concerns assessment of registered persons who fail to furnish returns despite the statutory process applicable to non-filers. The present judgment directly concerns the corresponding TNGST Act provision.

Link to download the order -

https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783058989_358compressed.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.