The Madras High Court set aside a GST order against Tvl A D Creation because the personal hearing had taken place before, rather than after, the taxpayer filed its replies. The Court sent the matter back for reconsideration subject to payment and adjustment conditions; it did not decide whether the tax was ultimately payable.
What happened in the Tvl A D Creation case
Tvl A D Creation challenged a State Tax Officer’s order dated 24 March 2026. The company argued that it had not received a personal hearing after submitting written replies dated 27 February and 24 March 2026. The State said that a hearing had been offered pursuant to an earlier High Court order dated 8 December 2025, but also contended that the taxpayer had not provided documents relevant to showing movement of goods. The Court noted that this was the second round of litigation. TaxGuru reproduces the order; The TaxCorp separately reported the central issue and result.
Why the timing of the hearing mattered
The Court observed that the personal hearing preceded the taxpayer’s replies and that no hearing followed those replies. It stated: “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 ruling addresses this sequence in this case; it should not be read as a blanket conclusion that every GST order is invalid whenever a hearing is not repeated after a reply.
The dispute also involved different tax heads. An earlier order dated 26 July 2024 had demanded CGST and SGST on the basis that the supplies were intra-State, while the challenged order raised IGST in relation to the same transactions. The taxpayer said its earlier CGST and SGST remittances had not been credited against the later demand. The Court directed that those remittances be appropriated toward the IGST demand, subject to the taxpayer providing appropriate authorization, including a refund request if procedurally necessary.
#1 Best Overall
What the High Court ordered
- Earlier 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 taxpayer must provide appropriate authorization and, if required by the applicable procedure, a refund request.
- Additional payment: The taxpayer must remit an additional 25% of the tax demand in the challenged order within 30 days of receiving a copy of the High Court’s order. This is a condition of the remand in this case, not a general GST rule.
- Fresh decision: After the taxpayer complies and receives 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.”
What the decision does—and does not—resolve
Setting aside the order and remanding the matter is procedural relief, not a final ruling on the tax dispute. The available reproduced order does not determine whether the supplies were intra-State or inter-State, whether IGST was properly imposed, or whether tax was otherwise due. Nor does the relief erase the taxpayer’s evidentiary obligations: the State had argued that documents about movement of goods had not been supplied, and the Court’s direction requires reconsideration after a reasonable opportunity.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What taxpayers can take from the ruling
The case illustrates why the record of the notice-and-hearing process matters. A hearing offered before written replies did not answer the complaint that the taxpayer had no opportunity to be heard after those replies in this dispute. A taxpayer facing a similar issue should review the dates and contents of notices, replies, hearing offers, and orders, and preserve evidence requested by the tax authority. This judgment alone does not establish that the same outcome will follow in every case; the result here included specific remand conditions and arose against a history of prior proceedings.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
The order text is reproduced by TaxGuru, and The TaxCorp’s report published 3 October 2026 corroborates the central issue and disposition. The available reporting does not establish an official court-hosted copy, case number, or exact date of the High Court order. The quoted judicial wording above is therefore attributed to the reproduced order rather than described as independently verified against the court docket.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
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.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
