Madras High Court
Tvl.Robert Clarenle Shine Medicals vs The State Tax Officer on 12 August, 2025
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C.Saravanan
W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025
and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.16975, 16976, 17011 and 17014 of 2025
W.P(MD)No.21858 of 2025
Tvl.Robert Clarenle Shine Medicals,
Represented by its Proprietor,
V. Robert Clarence,
GSTIN 33AFFPR2005E1Z1,
2-98B, D, Colachel Road,
Thingal Nagar,
Neyoor Post,
Kanniyakumari – 629802. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Tax Officer,
Thuckalay - 2 Assessment Circle,
South High Ground Road,
Palayamcottai,
Tirunelveli - 627 002.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary Commercial Taxes Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.Union of India,
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance (MOF),
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025
Raj Path Marg,
E Block,
Central Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110 011. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the
files of the third respondent in notifications issued in Notification No.
09/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, along with its Notification No.
56/2023-Central Tax dated the 28.12.2023 on the files of the Third
Respondent herein, second respondent's proceedings in G.O. Ms. No.41 dated
05.04.2023 and consequential assessment order passed by the first respondent
in GSTIN - 33AFFPR2005E1Z1/2017-18 dated 25.11.2023 for the
assessment year 2017-18 and quash the same as ultra vires Section 168A of
the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, cannot act retrospectively,
apart from being violative of Article 14, 246A and 265 of the Constitution of
India, 1950.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.K.Govindarajan
Deputy Solicitor General of India
W.P(MD)No.21858 of 2025
Tvl.Robert Clarenle Shine Medicals,
Represented by its Proprietor,
V. Robert Clarence,
GSTIN 33AFFPR2005E1Z1,
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025
2-98B, D, Colachel Road,
Thingal Nagar,
Neyoor Post,
Kanniyakumari – 629802. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Tax Officer,
Thuckalay - 2 Assessment Circle,
South High Ground Road,
Palayamcottai,
Tirunelveli - 627 002.
2.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its Secretary,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.Union of India,
Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance (MOF),
Raj Path Marg,
E Block,
Central Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110 011. ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records on the
files of the assessment order passed by the first respondent in GSTIN
33AFFPR2005E1Z1/2019-20 dated 26.12.2023 for the assessment year
2019-20 and quash the same as ultra vires Section 168A of the Central Goods
and Services Tax Act, 2017, Cannot act retrospectively, apart from being
violative of Article 14, 246A and 265 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
For R3 : Mr.K.Govindarajan
Deputy Solicitor General of India
COMMON ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court challenging the respective impugned assessment orders dated 25.11.2023 and 26.12.2023 for the assessment years 2017- 2018 and 2019-2020. These writ petitions have been filed long after the respective assessment orders have been passed.
2. The petitioner had also challenged the respective notifications issued under Section 168A of the respective Goods and Services Tax Enactments, 2017. It is also noticed that the petitioner has not replied to the notices that proceeded the impugned order. Ordinarily this Court may have intervened by putting the petitioner to terms with the consistent view followed by this Court.
3. However, It is noticed that a detailed order has recently been passed by the Principal Bench of this Court in a batch of cases in M/s.Tata Play Limited vs. Union of India and others, reported in 2025 (7) TMI 772, 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025 wherein impugned notification issued under Section 168 A of the Act has been quashed with certain directions. The operative portion of the said order reads as under:
“10. Conclusion:
i) The authorities under the CGST Act shall have the benefit of exclusion of the period 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, while reckoning limitation under sub section (2) and (10) to Section 73 of CGST Act, in terms of the of the Supreme Court dated 10.01.2022 passed under Article 142 of the Constitution.
ii) Notification Nos.9 and 56 of 2023 stands vitiated and illegal for the following reasons:
a) It results in diminishing / curtailing the limitation which was otherwise available in view of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of Constitution, and thus contrary to the object of Section 168A of CGST Act.
b) It proceeds on an erroneous assumption of the limitation available and a misconception as to the scope and effect of the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of Constitution. The impugned notification made on an erroneous assumption of the position in law is unsustainable on the ground of being arbitrary.
c) The impugned notification results in extinguishing vested right of action with the authorities under CGST Act by diminishing the limitation thus suffers from the vice of arbitrariness.
d) The impugned notification is issued on the basis of recommendation made without examining relevant materials discussed supra and thus stands vitiated.
e) In addition to the above reasons, impugned notification No.56/2023 is made even prior to the recommendations of the GST Council, failure to comply with the statutory mandate renders the notification illegal.
f) The impugned notification no.56/2023 is issued on the basis of the recommendations of GIC which cannot be a substitute for GST Council and thus stands vitiated.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025
4. The said order has been followed by this Court in several cases including the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.19943 of 2025 vide order dated 23.07.2025.
5. In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of by quashing the respective impugned assessment orders and remitted the case back to the respondents to pass fresh order on merits.
6. However, it is open to the respondents to proceed further in the light of the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court under similar circumstances in the case of HCC-SEW-MEIL-AAG JV Vs. Assistant Commissioner of State Tax (S.L.P.No.4240 of 2025) against the order of the Telegana High Court. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
sn
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm )
W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025
To
1.The State Tax Officer,
Thuckalay - 2 Assessment Circle,
South High Ground Road,
Palayamcottai,
Tirunelveli - 627 002.
2.The Secretary,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai - 600 009.
3.Union of India,
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance (MOF), Raj Path Marg, E Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 011.
7/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm ) W.P(MD)Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025 C.SARAVANAN, J.
sn W.P(MD).Nos.21858 and 21859 of 2025 12.08.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/08/2025 03:03:48 pm )