iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
The Madras High Court set aside a GST order against Tvl A D Creation after finding that the personal hearing had taken place before, rather than after, the taxpayer’s written replies. The Court sent the matter back for reconsideration on conditions, including an additional payment of 25% of the tax demand within 30 days. It did not decide whether the underlying tax was due.
What was the dispute in Tvl A D Creation?
Tvl A D Creation challenged a State Tax Officer’s order dated 24 March 2026. The taxpayer argued that it had not received a personal hearing after submitting replies dated 27 February and 24 March 2026. The State said a hearing had been offered pursuant to an earlier High Court order of 8 December 2025. It also argued that the taxpayer had not supplied documents relevant to proving movement of goods, and noted that this was the second round of litigation. TaxGuru reproduces the order and reports the parties’ positions.
Why did the Court set aside the order?
The Court observed that the hearing had been offered before the taxpayer’s replies, but not afterwards. As the reproduced order puts it: “On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that a personal hearing was offered prior to the petitioner’s reply, but not thereafter.” The Court also considered the tax-head discrepancy between the earlier and challenged orders and the case’s procedural history.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
A 26 July 2024 order had demanded CGST and SGST on the basis that the supplies were intra-State. The challenged order instead raised IGST for the same transactions. The Court also noted the apparent failure to provide documents requested in a notice dated 22 January 2026. Setting aside the order did not erase that evidentiary issue: the matter returned for reconsideration, and the taxpayer remained subject to the conditions imposed by the Court.
What did the remand require?
-
Adjust prior remittances: Amounts paid under the CGST and SGST heads pursuant to the High Court’s 8 December 2025 order are to be appropriated toward the IGST demand. The petitioner must provide the appropriate authorization, including a refund request if procedurally necessary.
-
Pay an additional amount: The petitioner must remit another 25% of the tax demand under the challenged order within 30 days from receiving a copy of the High Court’s order. This is a case-specific condition, not a general rule for GST appeals.
Rank #2
-
Receive reconsideration: Once the petitioner complies and has had a reasonable opportunity to be heard, the authority must issue a fresh order within five months from the date of compliance. The reproduced order states: “After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within five months from the date of compliance with the above conditions.”
Recommended Free Tools
Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.
What the ruling does—and does not—decide
This was a procedural remand, not a final ruling on the tax merits. The available reproduced order does not determine whether the supplies were intra-State or inter-State, or whether tax was otherwise payable. It addresses the hearing sequence and directs the tax authority to reconsider the matter subject to compliance with the remand conditions.
The accessible reports identify the case as Tvl A D Creation v. State Tax Officer and reproduce the order, but do not establish an official court-hosted copy, case number, or exact date of the High Court’s order. TaxGuru reports that those case details are restricted to paid members. The TaxCorp’s 3 October 2026 report separately corroborates the central hearing issue and disposition. Accordingly, the quoted wording above is from the reproduced text, not independently authenticated against the court docket.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
