M/S.AYYANS TRADERS (GSTIN NO.33AYOPJ9081E1Z7), vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

Court
Madras High Court

WP No. 38829 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 38829 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011006202026}
AND
WMP NO. 43560, 43563 & 43564 OF 2026
M/s.Ayyans Traders
(GSTIN NO.33AYOPJ9081E1Z7),
Represented by its Proprietor,Mrs.Janani,
8/5, Muthamizh Street, Denugambal Nagar,
Madambakkam, Kancheepuram,
Tamilnadu-600 126
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Selaiyur Assesment Circle,
66,Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Salai,
3rd Floor,Mylapore Taluk Office Building,
RA Puram, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028
2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST),
Tambaram Zone,4th Floor,PAPJM
building,Greams Road,Chennai-600 006
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned Orders in reference number GSTIN/33AYOPJ9081E127/
2018-19 dated 10.12.2025 along with order under Section 74 in Reference No.
ZD331225149207L Dated. 10.12.2025 of the 1st Respondent and Consequential
orders issued by the 2nd Respondent to the Banks to have the Petitioners Bank
account attached in reference No.GSTIN 33AYOPJ9081E127/2018-04-01 to
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:43 pm )

WP No. 38829 of 2026
2019-03-31 dated 12.3.2026 enclosed with Form GST DRC -13 dated
12.3.2026, and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondents to give
the Petitioner personal hearing
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Ravichandran
For Respondent(s): M/s.G.Dhana Madhri Spl.Gp (t)
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.12.2025
st
passed by the 1 respondent and the consequential attachment notice dated
nd
12.03.2026 issued by the 2 respondent.
2. Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice
on behalf of the respondent.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal
at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the issue
involved in this case is pertaining to the financial year 2018-2019. During the
said period, the turn over of the petitioner was a sum of Rs.82,74,520/-. As per
the Notification dated 13.10.2017, the turnover limit for composition scheme
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:43 pm )

WP No. 38829 of 2026
for the financial year 2018-19 was a sum of Rs.1 Crore. However, the
respondent had issued a show cause notice dated 27.06.2025 by inadvertently
relying on the turnover limit of Rs.75 Lakhs. Thereafter, the impugned order
came to be passed on 10.12.2025, under Section 74 of the GST Act, as if the
petitioner’s turnover exceeds the threshold limit.
5. Further, he would contend that even assuming if the petitioner’s
turnover exceeds the threshold limit, the respondent can only initiate
proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act. However, in this case, the
impugned order came to be passed by wrongly invoking the provisions of
Section 74 of the GST Act. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate
orders.
6. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
submit that in this case, the petitioner’s turnover exceeds the threshold limit of a
sum of Rs.75 Lakhs. However, without disclosing the same, he paid the tax
amount based on the composite levy. Under these circumstances, the respondent
made adjudication under Section 74 of the GST Act and passed the impugned
order. Hence, he requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:43 pm )

WP No. 38829 of 2026
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and
also perused the materials available on record, including the Notification
No.46/2017 dated 13.10.2017.
8. A perusal of the Notification dated 13.10.2017 makes it clear that as
per the said notification, the turnover limit was enhanced from a sum of Rs.75
Lakhs to Rs.1 Crore. In this case, the petitioner’s turnover was a sum of
Rs.82,74,520/-, which is below the threshold limit stated in the aforesaid
notification. Therefore, he paid the GST based on the composite levy. However,
without considering all the above aspects, the respondent had issued the show
cause notice dated 27.06.2025 by inadvertently relying on the turnover limit of
Rs.75 Lakhs. Thereafter, the impugned order came to be passed on 10.12.2025,
under Section 74 of the GST Act, in total non-application of mind.
9. As rightly contended by the petitioner, even assuming if the
petitioner’s turnover exceeds the threshold limit, the respondent can only
initiate proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act. However, in this case, the
impugned order came to be passed by wrongly invoking the provisions of
Section 74 of the GST Act. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to
set aside the impugned order dated 10.12.2025 passed by the respondent.
Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:43 pm )

WP No. 38829 of 2026
(i) The impugned order dated 10.12.2025 is set aside
and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh
consideration.
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along
with the required documents, if any, within a period of two
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the
petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a
14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to
the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders, under
Section 73 of the GST Act, on merits and in accordance with
law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order
itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the
attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner, vide
notice dated 12.03.2026, cannot survive any longer. As a
sequel, the concerned Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank
account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of
a copy of this order.
12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, in WMP.Nos.43563 & 43564 of
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:43 pm )

WP No. 38829 of 2026
2026, are closed. The miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.43560 of 2026, which
has been filed to dispense with the production of original assessment order, is
ordered.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsa
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Selaiyur Assesment Circle,
66,Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Salai,
3rd Floor,Mylapore Taluk Office Building,
RA Puram, Greenways Road,
Chennai-600 028
2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST),
Tambaram Zone,4th Floor,PAPJM
building,Greams Road,Chennai-600 006
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:43 pm )

WP No. 38829 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
nsa
WP No. 38829 of 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/11/2026 06:42:43 pm )