M/S.Mns Enterprises v. The Additional Commissioner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.06.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P.Nos.19928, 19929 & 19932 of 2023 M/s.MNS Enterprises (Represented by its Proprietor Shri.Sheik Dawood) 6/12, Maduvankarai, 1st Street Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
... Petitioner in W.P.No.20547 of 2023 Shri.Sheik Dawood 6/12, Maduvankarai, 1st Street Alandur, Chennai-600 016.
... Petitioner in W.P.No.20549 of 2023 M/s.Noordeen Enterprises (Represented by its Proprietor Shri Shahul Hameed Niaz) SF No.715/2B, Shop No.1 Valugalambedu, Kundrathur Road Thirumudivakkam Chennai-600 132.
... Petitioner in W.P.No.20552 of 2023 Vs The Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Chennai South Commissionerate 692, M.H.U. Complex, Nandanam Chennai-600 032.
... Respondent in all WPs Writ Petition No.20547 of 2023 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order in Original
No.53/20203(DGGI) dated 28.03.2023 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently, pass directions to the respondent to permit the petitioner to cross-examine necessary persons. Writ Petition No.20549 of 2023 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order in Original No.53/20203(DGGI) dated 28.03.2023 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently, pass directions to the respondent to permit the petitioner to cross-examine necessary persons. Writ Petition No.20552 of 2023 filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records relating to the impugned order in Original No.53/20203(DGGI) dated 28.03.2023 passed by the respondent and quash the same and consequently, pass directions to the respondent to permit the petitioner to cross-examine necessary persons. For Petitioner in all WPs:
Mr.G.Natarajan For Respondent in all WPs:
Mr.K.Mohana Murali Senior Panel Counsel ***** C O M M O N O R D E R In these three writ petitions, a common order-in-original assessing tax liability is challenged.
2. The primary ground of challenge is that the respective petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine Mr.Joseph Selvaraj, whose statement was relied upon.
3. Learned counsel, appearing for all the petitioners, refers to the orderin-original, wherein the observations of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, E.O.II, Egmore, are recorded. He points out that the Magistrate recorded that bruises and injuries were noticed on the body of Mr.Joseph Selvaraj and that he stated that he was ill-treated by the officials of the GST Department. Because the statement of said individual was relied upon, he contends that it was just and necessary for the respective petitioner to crossexamine Mr.Joseph Selvaraj. Learned counsel contends that denial of right of cross-examination contravenes the principles of natural justice.
4. This contention is countered by the respondents by submitting that the tax liability was imposed on the respective petitioner primarily on the ground of fraudulent availment of Input Tax Credit (ITC). It is also submitted that the petitioners could have established that they were entitled to avail of ITC by submitting documentary proof that supplies made to them were genuine and legitimate.
5. In quasi-judicial proceedings, the right of cross-examination is not absolute. In the case at hand, the allegation against the respective petitioner was that ITC was availed without a genuine supply being made. This could have been countered by filing an appropriate reply enclosing documents such as invoices, e-way bills, transportation receipts and the like. In this factual context, mere denial of right of cross-examination does not vitiate proceedings against the respective petitioner. Consequently, I am not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction.
6. Nonetheless, it may be possible for the respective petitioner to establish that the ITC availed of was valid by placing on record material documents. Being a dispute involving factual aspects, it would be appropriate that this dispute be carried to the statutory appellate forum. These writ petitions were lodged shortly after the limitation period expired and within the condonable period.
7. Considering the aforesaid, these Writ Petitions are disposed of on the following terms:
(i) The respective petitioner is permitted to file a statutory appeal against the order impugned herein; and (ii) If such appeal were to be presented within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the appellate
authority is directed to receive and dispose of the same on merits, subject to compliance with the pre-deposit requirements in that regard.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
03.06.2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking order / Non-speaking order mk To The Additional Commissioner of GST and Central Excise Chennai South Commissionerate 692, M.H.U. Complex, Nandanam Chennai-600 032.
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.
mk 03.06.2026 (2/2)