M/s. Ferrosco Industries Private Limited vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GST APPEAL) (ST)
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4257
WA No. 3181 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
WA No. 3181 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011713402026}
AND
CMP NO. 28245 OF 2026
M/s. Ferrosco Industries Private Limited
Rep. by its Director Mr Vibin Subramani
No.6. 2nd Floor Nethaji Road, Arunachala
Nanjundapuram Coimbatore 641036.
Also at
S.F.737/1, NH 7,
Tirunelveli Kanyakumari Highway,
Radhapuram Taluk, Pazhavur village,
Tirunelveli-627 114.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
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
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
2026:MHC:4257
WA No. 3181 of 2026
3. The State Tax Officer - Nanguneri Assessment
Circle, Commercial Taxes Building SF 29-3,
Kalakad Main Road,
Nanguneri 627108.
..Respondent(s)
Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside order
dated 06.04.2026 made in W.P. No.12308 of 2026.
For Appellant(s): Mr.R.Swarnavel
For Respondent(s): Mr.B.Sivaraman,
Government Advocate (Taxes)
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
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
2026:MHC:4257
WA No. 3181 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
2026:MHC:4257
WA No. 3181 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
2026:MHC:4257
WA No. 3181 of 2026
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
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
2026:MHC:4257
WA No. 3181 of 2026
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.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )
2026:MHC:4257
WA No. 3181 of 2026
DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.
AND
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
ssm
WA No. 3181 of 2026
AND
CMP NO. 28245 OF 2026
15-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/10/2026 06:32:10 pm )