WA/3181/2026 of M/s. Ferrosco Industries Private Limited Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GST APPEAL) (ST) on 15 October 2026

JUDGMENT

(Delivered by Dr.Anita Sumanth, J.) 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. (A.S.M, J.) (K.R.S, J.) 15-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes ssm To

1. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal) (ST) 1st Floor, Commercial Tax Buildings, South High Ground Road, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

2. The State Tax Officer (ST), Commercial Tax Office, Bazaar Street, Commercial Taxes Building Kuniyamuthur, Dr. Balasundaram Road, Perur, Coimbatore 641018.

3. The State Tax Officer - Nanguneri Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building SF 29-3, Kalakad Main Road, Nanguneri 627108.

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J. AND K.RAJASEKAR, J. ssm WA No. 3181 of 2026 AND CMP NO. 28245 OF 2026 15-10-2026