CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.(MD)No.12978 of 2026 and W.M.P(MD)No.9723 of 2026 Tvl. MJD Construction & Engineering Contractors Private Limited, Represented by its Managing Director Janaka Jebangelin, GSTIN : 33AAECM7900N1ZB 5/11-B, Main Road Kannumammoodu, Palugal, Kanniyakumari-629170. .. Petitioner

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 28.04.2026

CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
W.P.(MD)No.12978 of 2026
and
W.M.P(MD)No.9723 of 2026

Tvl. MJD Construction & Engineering
Contractors Private Limited,
Represented by its Managing Director Janaka Jebangelin,
GSTIN : 33AAECM7900N1ZB
5/11-B, Main Road Kannumammoodu,
Palugal,
Kanniyakumari-629170. .. Petitioner

Vs. –

The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Kuzhithurai Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Buildings,
Kuzhithurai. .. Respondent

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the respondent in Form GST DRC-01D bearing Reference No.ZD331225392370L, dated 26.12.2025 passed under Section 79 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the tax period October 2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and in violation of the principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to drop all further proceedings including recovery of penalty.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudalai Muthu

For Respondent : Mr.R.Sureshkumar
Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

The Writ Petition is filed with a prayer to set aside the impugned order dated 26.12.2025. The same is passed under Section 79 of the TNGST Act, 2017 for the month of October 2025.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the material records of the case, the case of the petitioner is that when the monthly return was filed in Form GSTR 3B, it was a fingering error. While uploading the monthly return in Form GSTR 3B without clicking the appropriate column straightaway, the upload column was clicked on account of which the return was uploaded without payment of the tax liable. As a matter of fact, upon perusal of the monthly return, it will be clear that the petitioner had accepted its liability and accordingly calculations were made. However, immediately when the impugned notice under DRC-01D was issued to explain the difference in tax within a period of seven days, on the very next day, the petitioner went and paid the difference of the amount. There was no any intention to evade the tax nor it is even alleged. Under the said circumstances, the impugned order has been passed not only directing to pay the liability but also levying interest and penalty. The proceedings are issued under Section 79 r/w Rule 88C of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Rules, 2017. These are provisions for recovery of the balance of tax, and there is no provision for imposition of a penalty. If the respondents are of the view that the interest and penalty are leviable, then they have to take recourse to the appropriate proceedings under Section 74A of the TNGST Act, 2017, as the case may be, and an opportunity has been given to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that Rule 88C of the CGST Rules, 2017, has been complied with inasmuch as the seven days notice has been issued, if the petitioner paid the amount only after the issue of notice.

4. I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the material records of the case.

5. On perusal of Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, it can be seen that it is an enabling provision for the revenue to recover the tax that is due. Further, Rule 88C of the CGST Rules, 2017, provides the manner in which the difference in liability reported in the statement of outward supplies and that is reported in the return is to be dealt with. Both Section 79 and Rule 88C of the CGST Rules, 2017, empower the authorities to direct the assessee to pay the differential tax liability along with the interest. Under the said provision, no penalty can be levied. Once the penalty is levied, by its very term, it is penal in nature; therefore, it cannot be levied without an opportunity to the petitioner. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, unless proceedings are taken by giving due opportunity under Section 74A of the TNGST Act, as the case may be, the penalty could not have been levied by the impugned proceedings.

6. In view thereof, this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed on the following terms:

(i) The impugned order dated 26.12.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter shall stand remanded to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration;
(ii) It will also be open for the petitioner to file a representation and documents within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a web copy of the order while initiating fresh proceedings and passing further orders;
(iii) The respondent shall also consider the said representation and documents and orders afresh in accordance with law, by taking into account the observation made supra, shall be passed.

No costs. Consequently the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

28.04.2026
sji

NCC: Yes/No
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
sji

To

The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Kuzhithurai Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Buildings,
Kuzhithurai.

W.P.(MD)No.12978 of 2026

28.04.2026