Madras High Court
WP(MD)/30951/2026 of M/s. AE ENGINEERING Vs The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and C.Excise on 2 November 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
WP(MD) No.30951 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011397542026}
and
WMP(MD) Nos.s23746 & 23747 of 2026
M/s. AE ENGINEERING,
Rep. its by Proprietor A.Thiruppathy,
GSTIN33AMBPT1389A1ZB, 71/2,
Ramaiah Cross Street, Jaihindpuram, Madurai.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner of
CGST and C. Excise,
Madurai-I Division, Madurai.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records in Order in Original No.MAD-GST-000-AC-08/2023 Dated 29.09.2023 for the tax period 2017-18 and quash the same as non- speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction.
For Petitioner
: Mr.S.Karunakar
For Respondent
: Mr.R.Gowri Shankar
Senior Standing Counsel
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
Order dated 29.09.2023 is assailed in this Writ Petition primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to contest the matter on merits.
2. Mr.R.Gowri Shankar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, accepts notice for the respondent. He points out that the petitioner attended the personal hearing on 04.07.2023 through Mr.S.Ajin, Assistant Manager. He adds that multiple personal hearing opportunities were provided thereafter, but that the petitioner failed to participate
3. Referring to the annual return of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that said annual return reveals that the difference between ITC availed of and ITC available was only Rs.3,41,087.03 each towards CGST and SGST and that the amount available under the IGST head exceeded that utilised in the GSTR-3B returns by Rs.1,47,425.82. In spite of the annual return being available at the time when the impugned order was issued, learned counsel submits that it is erroneously recorded therein that excess IGST of Rs.5,64,363 and excess CGST and SGST of Rs.11,80,077/- each were availed of and utilised by the petitioner. Therefore, he seeks another opportunity to contest the matter. On instructions, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 100% of the tax demand under the impugned order as a condition for remand. An endorsement to that effect has been made.
4. Comparing the annual return with the impugned order, the petitioner has an arguable case to contend that the extent of mismatch is lower than that recorded in the impugned order. In order to provide another opportunity to the petitioner to establish said contention, subject to the remittance of 100% of the tax demand under the impugned order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within 5 months from the date of remittance of 100% of the tax demand under the impugned order in the manner specified above. Subject to fulfilment of this condition, the bank attachment relating to the impugned order shall be raised.
5. This Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 02-11-2026 Index: No Speaking Neutral Citation: No JEN To The Assistant Commissioner of CGST and C.Excise, Madurai-I Division, Madurai.
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. JEN WP(MD) No. 30951 of 2026 02-11-2026