High Court Partially Allows GST Writ Petition, Cites No Overlap in Jurisdiction

This current writ petition [W.P.(MD) No. 17803 of 2025], dated July 2, 2025, is being filed by M/s. IRISH Health Care, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before the Madras High Court. In this writ petition, the petitioner (M/s IRISH Health Care) is being represented by its proprietor, Mr. Selvam. The company is challenging a GST assessment order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, Rockfort Assessment Circle, Trichy, who is the second respondent in the case. The petitioner also named the Appellate Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST), Trichy, as the first respondent.

Why Writ Petition Was Filed

• The petitioner challenged the GST assessment order (GSTIN 33CKTPS8722E1ZP) dated April 30, 2024, for the Assessment Year 2018-2019. The company had earlier received a Show Cause Notice (SCN) from the department in Form DRC-01 on February 1, 2023, asking the company to provide a valid reason why the particular action should not be taken against it and to defend itself. Although the petitioner replied to the notice on the same day when the final order was passed, i.e., on April 30, 2025, the company did not appear for the hearing, which led the department to issue the final order dated April 30, 2024, against the petitioner without fully discussing the reply.

Petitioner’s Argument

• The petitioner raised an argument that in respect of the same dispute, the Central Authority had also passed an order on December 5, 2023, for the tax period from July 1, 2017, to March 31, 2018. They claimed they had already filed an appeal against that order on May 10, 2024, and that both orders (from Central and State authorities) were overlapping for the same tax period.

What Court Discovered

• The court discovered that there was no real overlap between the Central and State GST authorities in this case. The court clarified that the order from the State Authority dated April 30, 2024, was from the assessment year 2018-19, and the order of the Central Authority dated December 5, 2023, covered a different tax period from July 2017 to March 2018. Therefore, the court did not accept the argument of overlapping jurisdiction.

What the Court Ordered

• Despite this, the judge observed that the petitioner did respond to the show cause notice, and that response was not properly considered in the final order. Hence, the court decided to partially support the petitioner and issued the following directions:

The impugned order dated April 30, 2024, is quashed on the condition that:

• The petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within 30 days from the date they receive this court order.
• The petitioner must submit a reply again to the original show cause notice, this time treating the reply as an addendum (extra part) to the earlier response, along with the payment.

Once the above is done, the second respondent (Deputy State Tax Officer) must:

• Reconsider the matter fully.
• Give the petitioner a fair hearing.
• Pass a fresh order within 3 months, based on merits and legal provisions.
• If the petitioner fails to deposit the 25% and submit the reply, the department is free to continue with its original order as if the court had dismissed the writ petition.

After releasing the following orders, the writ petition was fully closed.