Facts of the Case

The Petitioner, Tvl. Intersnack Cashew India Private Limited, represented by its Authorized Signatory, filed a Writ Petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition sought a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records and quash the impugned assessment order passed by the Respondent, the Assistant Commissioner (ST)-3, Tuticorin. The impugned order bore GSTIN No. 33AAHCR7804H1ZD and was accompanied by Form GST DRC-07 under Reference No. ZD330226040935H, dated 05.02.2026. The petitioner approached the High Court invoking constitutional writ jurisdiction to challenge the validity of this tax demand and assessment order.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether the impugned assessment order along with Form GST DRC-07 dated 05.02.2026 was passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, judicial discipline, and constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).
  2. Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative, efficacious statutory remedy of appeal is available before the Appellate Authority under the GST Act.
  3. Whether the petitioner could be permitted to withdraw the pending writ petition with the liberty to approach the competent appellate forum to agitate the merits of the assessment.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner originally contended that the impugned assessment order and the accompanying Form GST DRC-07 were legally unsustainable. They asserted that the Respondent acted arbitrarily and perversely, resulting in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice and judicial discipline. It was further argued that such arbitrary tax determination directly infringed upon their fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 (Right to Equality) and Article 19(1)(g) (Right to carry on trade or business) of the Constitution of India.

However, during the active course of the hearing, the learned counsel representing the petitioner modified their strategy and formally requested the Court for permission to withdraw the writ petition. The petitioner sought explicit liberty from the High Court to prefer a statutory appeal directly before the designated Appellate Authority, executing an endorsement on the case file to confirm this intent.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Respondent, represented by the Government Standing Counsel, stood by the administrative and assessment actions taken by the Office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tuticorin 3 Assessment Circle. While the detailed merits of the tax liability were not extensively debated due to the petitioner's sudden move for withdrawal, the standard legal position of the revenue authorities remains that a regular statutory appellate channel exists under the GST framework. Consequently, direct intervention via a writ petition under Article 226 is uncalled for unless exceptional circumstances are proven. The Respondent did not oppose the recording of the petitioner’s endorsement to withdraw the matter to approach the statutory appellate forum.

Court Order & Findings

The Single-Judge Bench of the Madras High Court, presided over by Hon'ble Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, took up the matter for final disposal. The Court evaluated the endorsement made by the petitioner’s counsel expressing the desire to withdraw the constitutional challenge in favor of pursuing the alternative appellate mechanism.

Accepting the formal endorsement and submission made by the petitioner's counsel, the Court ordered the dismissal of the Writ Petition as withdrawn. The Court directed that no costs would be imposed on either party. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition [W.M.P(MD)No.11249 of 2026] was closed. The ruling effectively allowed the petitioner the tactical transition to exhaust their statutory remedies before the regular Appellate Authority.

Important Clarification

This order serves as a procedural clarification regarding the hierarchy of remedies in GST litigation. Even when a taxpayer alleges arbitrary action or violations of natural justice under Article 226, courts frequently validate the path of regular statutory appeals. By recording the petitioner's withdrawal with the specific liberty to file an appeal, the High Court ensures that the doors of the administrative appellate authority are not shut due to the parallel pendency or timeline consumption of the writ proceedings. It underscores the legal principle that exercising statutory alternate remedies is highly preferred before seeking extraordinary constitutional reliefs.

Sections Involved

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Invoke of Writ Jurisdiction for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari.
  • Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Allegation concerning the violation of the right to equality and arbitrary state action.
  • Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India: Allegation regarding the violation of the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade, or business.
  • Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act, 2017 / Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax (TNGST) Act, 2017: Implicitly involved statutory provision governing appeals to the Appellate Authority.

Link to download the order - https://mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1783058426_309compressed.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.