Madras High Court
Cbigs Apparels And Jewels vs The Joint Commissioner on 7 July, 2026
Author: C.Saravanan
Bench: C. Saravanan
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 16.04.2026
Pronounced on 07.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.P.Nos. 3204 & 16529 of 2024
and
W.P.No.6074 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos. 3463, 3466, 18126 & 18128 of 2024
and
W.M.P.Nos.6575 & 6578 of 2026
W.P.No.3204 of 2024
CBIGS Apparels and Jewels,
Partnership Firm
Rep. by its, Authorized Signatory S.Nagarajan,
Ground Floor, New No.67, Old No.30 III Cross Street,
Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 600 020.
… Petitioner
Vs
1.The Joint Commissioner,
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
GST, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No. 88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.
3.State Tax Officer,
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No. 88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.
__________
Page1 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
4.The Branch Manager,
Axis Bank Ltd.,
No. 18, MG Road, (Near Adyar Bus Depot)
Sastri Nagar, Chennai
5.The Branch Manager.
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
No-T31,7th Avenue, MG Road,
Besant Nagar Branch, Chennai – 600 090.
6.The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.,
2/1, L.B.Road, Adyar Branch,
Chennai – 600 020.
7.Cbigs Advertising Pvt Ltd.,
Regd. Office at
Old no. 42, New No. 62,
Sri Venkatachalapathy Illam, 53rd Street,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 600 083.
… Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
second respondent in respect of the letter dated 19.10.2023 issued to the
respondents 4 to 6 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit
and consequentially permit the petitioner to operate the bank accounts with
the Respondents 4 to 6 herein without any hindrance.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Counsel
For Mr.K.S.Karthik Raja
For R1 to R3 : Mr.TNC.Kaushik
Additional Government Pleader
For R4 : Mr.O.S.Karthikeyan
For R5 : Mr.C.Mohan & Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary
For M/s. King & Partridge
For R6 : Mrs.G.Shanthi Meenakshi
__________
Page2 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
W.P.No.16529 of 2024
Mrs.N.Seetha,
No.21, Sundaram Street,
Vivekananda Nagar, Nesapakkam,
Chennai – 600 078.
… Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Joint Commissioner,
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, GST,
Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.
3. State Tax Officer,
Nungamabakkam Assessment Circle,
No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.
4. The Branch Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd,
No-T31, 7th Avenue, MG Road,
Besant Nagar Branch, Chennai – 600 090.
… Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
second respondent respect of the letter dated 19.10.2023 issued to the fourth
respondent and quash the same illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit and
consequentially permit the petitioner to operate the bank account with the
fourth respondent therein without any hindrance.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajesh
For R1 to R3 : Mr.C.Harsharaj
Special Government Pleader
__________
Page3 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
W.P.No.6074 of 2026
Yantur Manufacturing Private Limited
rep by its director Preethika.N,
CIN is U24290TN2020PTC139618
No.21 Sundaram Street,
Vivekanatha Nagar Ramapuram,
Chennai Tamil Nadu 600 089. … Petitioner
Vs
1.The joint commissioner
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,GST,
Greams Road,
Chennai- 06.
2.The assistant commissioner (ST)
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No. 88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet, Chennai Tamil Nadu 600 031.
3.State Tax Officer
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No.88 Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet Chennai Tamil Nadu 600 031.
4.The Branch Manager
ICICI BANK Ramapuram Branch,
3/21, Valluvar salai, Ramapuram,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 089.
5.CBIGS Advertising Pvt. Ltd.,
Regd. Office at
Old no. 42, New no. 62,
Sri Venkatachalapthy Illam,
53rd Street, Ashok Nagar,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 083.
..Respondents
__________
Page4 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
third Respondent in respect of the impugned notice dt. 25.09.2023 issued to the
Petitioner and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit and
consequentially permit the Petitioner to operate the bank account with the fourth
Respondent herein without any hindrance.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajesh
For R1 to R3 : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran
Government Advocate
For R4 : Mr.C.Mohan & Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary
For M/s. King And Partridge
COMMON ORDER
In these writ petitions, the respective petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs:-
S. Writ Petition Name of the Relief
No. No. Petitioners
1. W.P.No.3204 CBIGS Apparels and Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
of 2024 Jewels, the Constitution of India, for issuance
Partnership Firm of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
Rep. by its, calling for the records of the second
Authorized Signatory respondent in respect of the letter dated
S.Nagarajan, 19.10.2023 issued to the respondents 4
to 6 and quash the same as illegal,
arbitrary and devoid of merit and
consequentially permit the petitioner to
operate the bank accounts with the
__________
Page5 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
Respondents 4 to 6 herein without any
hindrance.
2. W.P.No.1652 Mrs.N.Seetha, Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
9 of 2024 the Constitution of India, issuance of a
Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
calling for the records of the second
respondent respect of the letter dated
19.10.2023 issued to the fourth
respondent and quash the same illegal,
arbitrary and devoid of merit and
consequentially permit the petitioner to
operate the bank account with the
fourth respondent therein without any
hindrance.
3. W.P.No.6074 Yantur Manufacturing Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of
of 2026 Private Limited the Constitution of India, issuance of a
rep by its director Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
Preethika.N, calling for the records of the
third Respondent in respect of the
impugned notice dt. 25.09.2023 issued
to the Petitioner and quash the same as
illegal, arbitrary and devoid of merit
and consequentially permit the
Petitioner to operate the bank account
with the fourth Respondent herein
without any hindrance.
2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.3204 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026 have
challenged the recovery proceedings initiated under Section 79(1)(c) of the
respective GST Enactments. The impugned recovery notice has been addressed
by the 2nd respondent to R4 to R6 in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, R4 in
W.P.No.16529 of 2024. The amounts have been sought to be recovered by
attaching the Bank accounts held by the respective petitioners in order to
recover the tax due and payable by M/s. CBIGS Advertising Private Limited,
__________
Page6 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
the 7th respondent in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, for the tax period 2017-2018. R4 in
W.P.No.16529 of 2024 is R5 in W.P.No.3204 of 2024.
3. The 7th respondent in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, namely M/s. CBIGS
Advertising Private Limited, is in arrears of Rs.3,66,42,318/- and has not filed
GSTR-3B for the Tax period 2017-2018. It appears that the said company has
opted for voluntary winding up under Sections 271(e) and 272 of the
Companies Act, 2013 and filed an application before the National Company
Law Tribunal, Division Bench (Court-I), Chennai (NCLT) on 07.11.2019 under
Sections 271(e) and 272 of the Companies Act, 2013, read with the Companies
(Winding Up) Rules, 2020.
4. By an order dated 20.03.2024, the National Company Law Tribunal,
Division Bench (Court-I), Chennai, passed the following order:
“(i) The present Company Petition stands admitted.
(ii) We appoint Prabhu S, email:[email protected]
with Reg.No.IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P01275/2018-2019/11948 as the
Provisional Liquidator for the Company viz. CBIGS Advertising
Private Limited.
(iii) We hereby direct the provisional Liquidator of the
Company to cause a public advertisement in any daily newspaper in
English and vernacular, regarding the admission of the Present
Company Petition under Section 271-272 of the Companies Act, 2013
in Form WIN 6 of the Companies (Winding Up) Rules 2020;
(iv) The Provisional Liquidator is permitted to initiate
appropriate action in accordance with the provisions of the
Companies Act, 2013 and to take control of the subject Company.
__________
Page7 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
(v) Post this matter for hearing on 24.06.2024.
(vi) The Registry of this Tribunal is directed to
communicate this order to the parties concerned and also to the
Official Liquidator.”
5. By another Order dated 20.03.2024, the National Company Law
Tribunal (NCLT) recorded that the said company, namely, CBIGS Advertising
Private Limited, had issued statutory notices to all concerned statutory
authorites, including the Regional Director, the Registrar of Companies
(Southern Region), the Income Tax Authorities, and GST Authorities.
6. It is informed that, by a subsequent order dated 29.10.2025, the NCLT
appointed the said provisional Liquidator as the Liquidator of the said company.
7. The recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioners in
W.P.Nos.3204 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026, primarily on the ground that the
petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, namely Mrs.N.Seetha, was a Director of
the defaulting company, namely, CBIGS Advertising Private Limited, the 7 th
respondent in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, which was incorporated on 12.01.2009.
8. It appears that the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024 (Mrs.N.Seetha)
was a Director of the said Company for a limited period and had allegedly
__________
Page8 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
tendered her resignation on 31.10.2013. However, she was subsequently
reappointed on 26.07.2014 and continued as its Director until 20.09.2019.
9. Thus, the said petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024 (Mrs.N.Seetha) was
the Director of the said Company during the period of the default for the Tax
Period 2017-2018.
10. It is stated that the said defaulting company has accumulated tax
liabilities under the provisions of the respective GST Enactments to the tune of
Rs.3,66,42,318/-. The respondents now seek to recover the said amount from
the respective petitioners, on the premise that Mrs.N.Seetha is also associated
with entities connected to the said company, namely CBIGS Advertising Private
Limited.
11. It appears that Mrs.N.Seetha, the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024,
was a partner in the petitioner firm in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, namely CBIGS
Apparels and Jewels. The said partnership firm was constituted on 13.11.2015
with Mrs.N.Seetha as its partner along with her daughter Ms. Preethika. They
hold equal shares in the petitioner firm in W.P.No.3204 of 2024 viz., CBIGS
Apparels and Jewels. Subsequently, it appears that Mrs.N.Seetha had exited the
said partnership firm and her son-in-law, namely Mr.Kandarp Pandya was
inducted as its partner.
__________
Page9 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
12. Meanwhile, the petitioner in W.P.No.6074 of 2026, namely, Yantur
Manufacturing Private Limited, was incorporated on 25.11.2020. The initial
Directors of the said company were Ms.Preethika and Mr.Kandarp Pandya, the
daughter and son-in-law of the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024. Thereafter,
the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, Mrs.N.Seetha, was appointed as its
Director on 20.02.2021. She was later designated as its Additional Director and
reportedly continued until she tendered her resignation on 28.03.2023.
13. It is further noted that Mr.Kandarp Pandya has also ceased to be
associated with the petitioner company in W.P.No.6074 of 2026. Following the
resignation of Mrs.N.Seetha on 28.03.2023, an intimation in Form DIR-12 was
filed on 16.11.2023 recording the cessation of her directorship in the petitioner
company, the petitioner in W.P.No.6074 of 2026, namely Yantur Manufacturing
Private Limited.
14. Mrs.N.Seetha, the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, has also
challenged the attachment of her bank account, which has been effected on
account of the tax liability allegedly incurred on account of the company,
namely M/s. CBIGS Advertising Private Limited, being liquidated in which she
had served as a Director.
__________
Page10 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
15. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in CBIGS Apparels and
Jewels (W.P.No.3204 of 2024) submits that five different accounts, including
two overdraft accounts maintained by the partnership firm, have been attached.
As a result, the entire operations of the said petitioner partnership firm has been
affected. It is further submitted that the partnership firm is no longer associated
with Mrs.N.Seetha, the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024.
16. The learned Senior Counsel also submits that its accounts maintained
with Axis Bank, ICICI Bank and HDFC Bank have been unfairly attached by
the Commercial Tax Department on the arrears of M/s. CBIGS Advertising
Private Limited.
17. The details of the bank accounts maintained by the petitioner
partnership firm in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, namely CBIGS Apparels and Jewels,
are as follows:-
Name of the Bank Account Number Account Type
AXIS BANK 909030097537634 Overdraft
AXIS BANK 923030005944472 Overdraft
AXIS BANK 917020020170502 Current
ICICI BANK 035005006251 Current
HDFC BANK 50200014890176 Current
__________
Page11 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
18. The third respondent in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, namely the State Tax
Officer, Nungambakkam Assessment Circle, No. 88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031, has filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated as
follows:-
“6. It is submitted that on check of various returns filed
by the petitioner the Audit has pointed out that the petitioner had not
made payments (as is evidenced from the fact that the petitioner had
not filed the required Form GSTR 3B) though the petitioner had filed
GSTR 1 or GSTR 2A. This indicated (filing of GSTR 1 and 2A and
non-filing of GSTR 3B) that the petitioner had undertaken/carried on
the business during the period but have not discharged their tax
liability besides passing on of irregular ITC. (GSTR 3B return is the
only instrument through which the liability is offset and ITC is
availed). An analysis of the data sheets pertaining to relevant fields in
the GSTR 1, 2A and 3B in respect of the petitioner, revealed that those
cases where GSTR 3B is null have been extracted. The petitioner had
not even filed even a single GSTR 3B in 2017-18. The reason for non-
filing of the GSTR 3B and consequent non-discharge of tax liability
were not put forth properly by the petitioner Accordingly, notice in
Form DRC 01A to the petitioner on 28.1.2023 and show cause notice
in Form DRC 01 was also issued on 21.3.2023, through online.
Though it was not permissible under the GST Act to serve the
communications of the department manually, the petitioner was
provided with such opportunity, and the notice sent to the petitioner,
was returned by the postal authority with an endorsement of “Left”
Hence, it is construed that the petitioner has no valid evidence of
records to file in respect of the difference between GSTR 3B and
GSTR 1 and therefore this respondent is left with no other alternative
except to confirm the proposal contained in the show cause notice
under section 73 of the Act along with interest and penalty In the
absence of any response from the petitioner’s side, with regard to the
payment of the demand as per the assessment order, this respondent
issued recovery notice in GSTIN 33AADCC5603K1ZW dt. 25.9.2023.
As there was no response from the petitioner in respect of the
recovery notice issued, this respondent is left with no other alternative
except issue bank attachment, as the arrear payable by the petitioner
is huge. Aggrieved by the attachment issued the petitioner filed the
above writ petition.
__________
Page12 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
7. With regard to para 3-6 of the affidavit, it is submitted
that though the said ex-partner Mrs. Seetha, retired from the
company, but she is continuing as the authorized
signatory/representative of the petitioner Hence, at the time of accrual
of demand, the said Mrs. Seetha is partner of the said firm. Therefore,
she is responsible for the liabilities of the company, when she was
partner of the petitioner firm. Verification of the returns filed by the
petitioner for the year 2017-18 revealed that the petitioner
undertaken/carried on the business during the relevant period but
have not discharged their tax liability besides passing on of irregular
ITC. Verification of datasheets pertaining to relevant fields in the
GSTR 1, 2A and 38, revealed that the petitioner had not filed even a
single GSTR 3B in 2017-18.
8. With regard to para 7-9 of the affidavit, it is submitted
that the attachment notice was not issued all of a sudden. The
assessment order was passed 24.6.2023 and the said order was sent
online to the petitioner After providing the appeal time of 90 days
only, the recovery notice dt. 25.9.2023 was issued to the petitioner All
the communications were sent to the petitioner as provided under the
GST Act, which were not responded to by the petitioner Further, the
notice sent manually was also not received by the petitioner
Therefore, there is no violation of principles of natural justice in
issuing the attachment notice as the petitioner was provided with
sufficient opportunity to make payment of the liability along with
interest and penalty Further, the demand legitimately due to the
Government Exchequer is huge, this respondent is having no other
alternative except to attach the bank account as none of the partners
of the petitioner come forward to clear the liability. The said
recovery notice addressed to the partner of the eptitioner firm who
denied receiving the same as it does not related to her. But as per the
contentions of the petitioner it is proved beyound doubt that though
the said ex-partner Mrs.Seetha, retired from the company, but she is
continuing as the authorized signatory/representative of the petitioner
firm. Hence, at the time of accrual of demand, the said Mrs.Seetha is
partner of the said firm. Therefore, she is responsible for the
liabilities of the company, when she was partner of the petitioner firm,
as per section 89 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017.
9. With regard to para 10-11 of the affidavit, it is
submitted that the said Mrs.Seetha is also now part of the company,
how the petitioner expected that the attachment would be released.
Further, the demand was accrued during the period when the said
Mrs.Seetha was partner of the company. Therefore, she cannot deny
her responsibility for the liability of the said firm. As the demand is
__________
Page13 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
huge, it is not possible for the department to release the attachment
without payment of liabilities legitimately due to the Government
Exchequer. The petitioner failed to intimate the resignation of the
said Mrs.Seetha from the petitioner firm, and they think that it is for
the department to verify the same from the website. It is the
responsibility of the petitioner to intimate the incoming and outgoing
partners to the department, to fix theresponsibilities arose in such
cases. Only after the attachment made the eptitioner intimated the
fact that Mrs.Seetha’s name was removed from the company portal.
Thus the petitioner had intentionally with malafide intention removed
her name from the portal on issue of attachment.
10. With regard to para 12-13 of the affidavit, it is
submitted that section 89 of the CGST/TNGST Act 2017, provides that
(1) notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, where
any tax, interest or penalty due from a private company in respect of
any supply of goods or services or both for any period cannot be
recovered, then, every person who was a director of the private
company during such period shall, jointly and severally, be liable for
the payment of such tax, interest or penalty unless he proves that the
non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance
or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company
Thus, it is proved beyond doubt that the said Mrs. Seetha. Director of
the petitioner firm has failed to settle the dues to the Exchequer
Therefore, there is no violation in attaching the accounts of the said
Mrs. Seetha.
11. With regard to para 14-15 of the affidavit, it is
submitted that the petitioner stated that there is no nexus between the
said company and the petitioner firm. The petitioner themselves stated
in the affidavit that instead of Mrs. Seetha, who was ex-partner of the
default company, her spouse Mr. Sundaram Nagarajan is the
authorized signatory in the said firm. This proved beyond doubt that
all partners in both the companies are members of same family, and
to misguide the authorities they have stated make belief statements
that Mrs. Seetha is not authorized signatory instead Mr Sundaram
Nagarajan is authorized signatory now This proved beyond doubt that
the petitioner firm carmouflaging the facts relating to the company
and mislead the Hon’ble Court to take a decision against the
Department. At the time of accrual of demand, ie. 2017-18, the said
Mrs. Seetha is a director of the company and therefore she cannot
deny her responsibility in paying the demand related to the said year
She was retired from the said firm only on 24.6.2019 and the demand
related to the period April 2017 to March 2018. Hence, they cannot
deny their liability of paying taxes, interest and penalty.
__________
Page14 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
12. With regard to para 16-18 of the affidavit, it is
submitted that the attachment could not be withdrawn as the demand
is very huge and if not the attachment was made, it could lead to
heavy revenue loss to the State Exchequer. The said Mrs. Seetha was
partner at the time of accrual of demands relating to the year 2017-
18. Hence, there no violation on the part of this respondent in
invoking section 79 of the GST Act for the recovery of revenue
legitimately due to the State Exchequer All the partners of the default
company are also partners of the present petitioner firm. Hence, they
cannot deny their relationship with the default company There is no
violation in serving the recovery notice on the petitioner as the same
was done following the procedures laid down under the GST Act.
13. With regard to para 19-21 of the affidavit, it is
submitted that the change of partnership in the firm has not been
reported by the petitioner to the respondents. It is the responsibility of
the petitioner to intimate the same to the department. Further in the
absence of any payment made by the petitioner on the demand raised,
this respondent is left with no other alternative except to invoke
section 79 of the Act to recover the revenue legitimately due to the
Government Exchequer. Hence, any stay granted to the collection of
revenue by the Hon’ble Court put this respondent into great hardship
in collecting the huge demand. Hence, it is submitted the no stay could
be granted and the attachment released without payment of demand.
14. With regard to Ground (a-e) of the affidavit, it is
submitted that there is no violation of principles of natural justice in
attaching the bank accounts of the petitioner, as the demand is huge
and there is no alternative except to attach the bank accounts for the
collection of demand. All the procedures laid down under section 79
of the Act was followed before issuing attachment notice. There is no
requirement of prior intimation to the petitioner for attaching the
bank accounts, and if done so it would make way for the petitioner to
clear the amount in their accounts. But it is submitted that there was
sufficient time for the petitioner from the date of passing of impugned
orders to make payment. Also it is not the duty of the respondents 4-6
to intimate the attachment of accounts made to the petitioner as it is
the responsibility of the banks to remit the amounts in the accounts of
the defaulter as required under Section 79(1)(c) of the TNGST Act,
2017 read with Section 142(7)(a) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and under
Rule 145(1) of the TNGST Rules, 2017.
15. With regard to Ground (f-i) of the affidavit, it is
submitted that there is no violation of any law in attaching the bank
accounts of the petitioner The Act provides for recovery of demands
as per section 79(1)(c) of the TNGST Act, 2017 read with section
__________
Page15 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
142(7)(a) of the TNGST Act, 2017 and under Rule 145(1) of the
TNGST Rules, 2017 and the banks are also responsible for obliging
with the requests of the department in recovering money from the
defaulters. There is no wrong assumption as contended by the
petitioner as all the partners in the defaulter firm are also partners in
the petitioner firm. Hence, there is no violation in attaching the bank
accounts of the petitioner firm for the collection of dues legitimately
due to the Government Exchequer.
16. Further, it is submitted that this Hon’ble Court by
order dt. 14.2.2024 passed in WMP No.3466 of 2024 in WP No. 3204
of 2024, granted interim stay of impugned order only insofar as such
order directs respondents 4-6 to pay the arrears to respondents 1-3
and made it clear that the attachment shall continue in operation.
With the direction of this Hon’ble Court, the department was put to
great hardship in recovering the tax legitimately due to the
Government Exchequer Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in WMP No.3466 of
2024 in WP No. 3204 of 2024, dt. 14.2.2024 and thus render justice.
In the circumstances, the writ petition is not maintainable
in law and therefore liable to be dismissed in limini.
The respondent reserves his right to file additional
counter if any required at a later point of time.
In these circumstances, for the foregoing reasons, it is,
prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the above
writ petitions with costs and thus render justice.”
19. The fourth respondent in W.P.No.3204 of 2024 has filed a counter
affidavit, wherein it is stated as follows:-
“3. At the outset, I crave leave of this Hon’ble Court to
refer to certain facts for complete appreciation of the case as
follows:-
(i) I submit that the petitioner is a Partnership concern
and is maintaining the following Accounts as narrated in the tabular
column below:-
__________
Page16 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026S.No. Account bearing Nature of Branch
numbers Account
01. 917020020170502 Current A/c Adyar Branch
02 923030005944472 Overdraft R.A.Puram Branch
03 919030097537634 Overdraft R.A.Puram Branch
(ii) I submitt that this Respondent Branch received a
communication dated 19.10.2023 from the 2nd respondent to mark
lien relating to PAN numbers ADWPS4414K, AAKFC9121E and
AAEPK9856G and furnish the details relating to the Bank account
maintained by the petitioner. In compliance of the communication
dated 19.10.2023, a lien was accordingly marked amounting to
Rs.2,66,42,308/- in all the aforementioned bank accounts narrated in
the tabular column above. This Respondent also brought it to the
notice of 2nd Respondent vide letter dated 21.10.2023 that the account
under the pan number AAEPK9856G stands closed stands during the
year 2011 itself and no statements are available at the moment
besides lien has been marked in the Petitioner’s Account.
(iii) I submit that as on 06.09.2024, a ledger balance of
Rs.78,090.85/- (Credit) is available Current Account bearing number
917020020170502 maintained with this Respondent Branch. I also
submit that as on 06.09.2024, a sum of Rs.66,86,130.00/- (Debit) has
been utilized by the petitioner in the overdraft facility account
bearing number 923030005944472 as against sanctioned limit of
Rs.1,00,00,000/- availed with R.A.Puram Branch besides a sum of
Rs.1,76,766/- (Credit) is available in the overdraft facility account
bearing number 919030097537634 as against sanctioned limit of
Rs.5,20,800/- availed with R.A.Puram Branch.
In view of what is stated above, suitable orders may be
passed recording the above and thus render justice.”
20. In reply of the counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed a rejoinder,
wherein it is stated as follows:-
“7. I state that this petition does not contest as to whether
if Mrs. Seetha is liable to pay dues of the defaulted company for which
she was a director during the defaulted tax period July 2017-March__________
Page17 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 20262018. It is to be noted that the Petitioner is a separate legal entity, a
person separate from Mrs. Seetha as defined under sec 2(84) of the
CGST Act 2017.
8. I state that an interim order was passed by this Hon’ble
Court dated 29th October 2024 wherein this Hon’ble Court permitted
the Petitioner to operate the bank accounts to the extent of 50% of
amounts lying in each of the banks/Respondents 4 to 6 forthwith.
9. I state that the contents of para 5 of the counter
affidavit are incorrect completely. The State Tax Officer who is
Respondent No 3 has not scrutinized returns u/s 61 of the CGST Act
2017 of the Petitioner. Instead, a show-cause notice was issued u/s 74
of the said Act on 16th November 2023 for the tax period July 2017-
March 2018 and the order vide Ref No. ZD331123192062W for
dropping proceedings was issued on 30th November 2023. It is
pertinent to note that subsequently the Petitioner has not received any
notice on the GST portal for any tax period and that all the returns
applicable have been filed and the applicable tax dues have been
paid.
10. I state that the contents of para 6 of the counter
affidavit are incorred again wherein the Petitioner has not received
any notice in FORM DRC-01A dated 28th January 2023.
11. I state that the Respondent No 3 in his counter
affidavit has mistaken the defaulted taxpayer M/s CBIGS Advertising
Private Limited as the Petitioner and in para 5 and 6 of the counter
affidavit addressed the defaulted taxpayer as Petitioner. The
Petitioner has filed all the relevant returns to the GST department
from the inception till today and the auditor certified copy is also
available.
12. I state that in para 7 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated the Mrs. Seetha ex-partner of the Petitioner was the authorized
signatory of the Petitioner at the time of accrual of demand and that
she is responsible for liabilities of the company. Also, in para 7 it is
stated that Petitioner has not even filed a single GSTR-3B in 2017-18.
13. I state that this writ petition is not contesting
whether dues are recoverable from Mrs. Seetha or not, this petition
is filed on the basis that recovery of dues from the Petitioner on
account of defaulted taxpayer. Further as stated earlier the
Petitioner has filed all their GSTR-3B for tax period 2017-18. It is
pertinent to note that Mrs. Seetha was only an authorized signatory on
the GST portal for filing of returns but was not a partner on the date
of issuance of notice.
14. I state that that all dues liable to be paid to Mrs.
Seetha on her retirement in terms with the amended partnership
__________
Page18 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
deed dated 24th June 2019 were paid to her and that on the date of
notice issued by the Respondent No. 3 no dues were payable even to
Mrs. Seetha by the Petitioner.
15. I state that a notice was issued to the Petitioner
dated 25th September 2023 and was also addressed to Mrs. Seetha
and Respondent No.4 in FORM GST DRC-13 demanding tax
payable u/s 79(1)(c) (i) of the CGST Act 2017 on the assumption
that we had dues payable to the defaulted taxpayer M/s CBIGS
Advertising Private Limited. There are no such dues payable either
side for which auditor certificate is also available.
16. I state that the Respondent No.3 has proceeded to
recover dues from the Petitioner only due to the common link of Mrs.
Seetha who was a partner in the Petitioner firm and was a director in
the company CBIGS Advertising Private Limited. Mrs. Seetha has
resigned from the defaulted company namely the 7th Respondent
(CBIGS Advertising Pvt. Itd) as well as from the Petitioner’s firm
(CBIGS Apparels and Jewels) in the year 2019 itself on health ground
and both the DIR12 and change of partnership deeg is available.
17. I state that in our reply dated 27th November 2023 to
the Respondent No.3 we clearly explained that we had no dues
payable to M/s CBIGS Advertising Private Limited and to establish
the same we produced our financial statements and a certificate by a
Chartered Accountant dated 2nd February 2024 to this effect.
18. I state that the Respondent No. 3 has misinterpreted
the provisions of sec 79(1)(c) of the said Act, since only if the
Petitioner had any money due or become due to the company OR if
money was held or may subsequently be held on account of the
company could the Respondent proceed against the Petitioner under
this section. It is re-iterated that the Petitioner has not conducted any
transaction with the company and that it has no dues payable to the
company for the Respondent No 3 to recover from the Petitioner dues
defaulted by the company.
19. I state that Circular No. 129/48-2019-GST dated 24th
December 2019 has laid down standard operating procedures for
non-filer of returns, if Respondent No 3 believed that the
taxpayer/Petitioner had not furnished returns then he first ought to
have issued notice in ASMT-13 which the Respondent No 3 has not.
Further it is stated in the circular in para 4(vi)
In case the defaulter furnishes a vaild return within thirty
days of the service of assessment order in FORM GST
ASMT-13, the said assessment order shall be deemed to
have been withdrawn in terms of provision of sub-section (2)
of section 62 of the CGST Act. However, if the said return
__________
Page19 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
remains unfurnished within the statutory period of 30 days
from issuance of order in FORM ASMT-13, then proper
officer may initiate proceedings under section 78 and
recovery under section 79 of the CGST Act;
20. I state that the Respondent No 3 has not followed
standard operating procedure laid in the circular and directly issued
notice u/s 79 of the said Act without serving notice and subsequent
order to FORM ASMT-13. Reliance is placed on the judgement
passed in the matter of V N Mehta & Company vs Assistant
Commissioner, HQ Preventive unit, Chennai by the Honourable
Madras High Court in W.P. 26187 of 2019 dated 08th November
2019 where the facts are identical to the Petitioner’s case since
Respondent No 3 has straight away resorted to recovery proceedings
which is incorrect and not in line with the procedures laid in the law.
21. It is further submitted that in para 8 the 3rd
Respondent has again stated incorrect facts. The assessment order
dated 24th June 2023 is not available online. Enclosed is the
screenshot of the portal. Further the 3rd Respondent states that dues
are recoverable from Mrs. Seetha as she was a partner of the
Petitioner “at the time of accrual of demand” in terms with sec 89 of
the CGST Act 2017 Mrs. Seetha during her tenure as Director with
the 7th Respondent’s company was not having finance authority nor
access to GST payable. HDFC Bank letter enclosed to prove that the
finance authority held with Mrs. Rama Krishnan and Mr. S. Krishnan
the email id and the mobile number mentioned in the bank letter are
owned by Mr. S.Krishnan. Hence the section 89 is not applicable.
22. I state that only if the Petitioner being the partnership
firm is liable to pay in the first place can a partner be then liable for
the default of the partnership firm. In the first place the Petitioner. i.e.
partnership firm itself has no monies due as explained previously to
the defaulted company therefore a partner cannot be liable.
23. I state that in para 9-13 the 3rd Respondent has
stated that Mrs. Seetha is also now a part of the company. It is
submitted that Mrs. Seetha is neither the partner of the firm nor
director in the company on the date of issuance of notice by 3rd
Respondent on 25th September 2023. It is agreed that she was an
authorized signatory on the GST portal but was not a partner in the
firm, she was an authorized signatory only for purpose of filing of
GST returns since OTP will be required and that needed an Indian
Mobile Number. The partners of the Petitioner firm reside outside
India and that Mrs. Seetha wife of Mr. S Nagarajan is the mother of
Mrs. Preethika N the partner of the Petitioner firm and the other
partner is one Mr. Kandarp Pandya who is the husband of Mrs.
__________
Page20 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
Preethika. Therefore, there was no mala-fide intention to remove Mrs.
Seetha’s name from portal after issuance of notice. I state the 3rd
Respondent in various places has confused itself with “company” and
“firm” and wrongly stated as per para 12 that “all partners of the
default company are also partners of the present Petitioner firm”. This
very statement proves that the Respondent No. 3’s negligence and
misunderstanding of the entire petition. The directors of the company
presently are Mr Krishnan and his associates having all banking
operations and management control from 2015 onwards and they are
not in any manner whatsoever related to the Petitioner and have
never been part of the partnership firm.
24. I state that the action of attaching an overdraft and
loan account facility is not in accordance with law. An overdraft
facility and loan account is a credit facility that a bank extends to its
customer, the unutilized limit is not the property of the customer in the
instant case of the Petitioner. With an overdraft facility the customer
is the debtor and the bank is the creditor so the bank does not hold
any money of the customer. The operations have been disrupted by the
the 3rd Respondent in freezing the bank accounts including the
overdraft facility which is not even an asset of the Petitioner. Reliance
is placed on several judgements to prove that an overdraft
facility/cash credit are not supposed to be attached by Revenue
authorities to recover any dues.
25. I state that the contents of the remaining paragraphs
in the counter are repetitive and lot of emphasis is given on amount
being huge therefore recoverable and reply to that is not necessary
since detailed explanation has been given to each point raised by the
3rd Respondent in his counter affidavit. Irrespective of the quantum, it
is submitted that due process of law ought to be followed and one
cannot jump to conclusions and take harsh action of recovery causing
severe despair to taxpayer. The contents of the counter affidavit are
erroneous and therefore denied. The contents of the writ petition are
reiterated not repeated herein for sake of brevity.
26. I state that the company CBIGS Advertising Private
Limited had filed a company petition with the National Company Law
Tribunal Chennal in CP/109/CHE/2021 dated 19th August 2021
seeking to wind up the company. NCLT, Chennai through its order
dated 17th November 2021 directed the company to issue notice to all
statutory authorities including the 3rd Respondent. It is further
submitted that the company filed affidavit of service on 17th
December 2021, reflecting that the 3rd Respondent was aware of the
company being in the process of winding up and final orders are also
passed by the NCLT Chennai. It is further submitted that nevertheless,
__________
Page21 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
ignoring such developments and the process laid in the legislation the
3rd Respondent proceeded to recover dues of the defaulted company
without substantive evidence regards any amount due from the
Petitioner to the company.
27. I state that the Respondents have wrongly assumed
and fastened the tax liability of the company M/s. CBIGS Advertising
Pvt. Ltd. upon the Petitioner whereas private limited company
liabilities are restricted to be paid by the directors only and cannot be
recovered from another Firm.
28. I state that there is one more account a Loan account,
with Axis Bank owned by Ms. Preethika and Mr. Kandarp pandya and
operated by them. The account was opened after a change of
partnership deed in 2019. In this connection Axis bank have given
proof of letter for both over draft and loan account.
29. I state that while sending the letter to Axis bank, the
3rd Respondent made the error of marking lien of Ex Director Mrs
Seetha with her PAN and has mentioned the current director Mr
S.Krishnan with his PAN number. The 3rd Respondent is not clear as
to which director the dues are recoverable either the Past or Present
directors.
30. 1 state that the audited IT return filed by CBIGS
Advertising Pvt Ltd to IT, ROC and to NCLT the statutory liability is
only 25 Lakhs appx. Hence it shows there is dispute between the
Respondent 3 and the defaulted company. The Defaulters company
has written to the GST department about the liquidation with NCLT
long back and also responded to GST Suppressing this fact and
attached the bank accounts of the Petitioner’s company is illegal.
31. I state that the Petitioner Firm has two OD/Loan
accounts with Axis Bank bearing AC. No.919030097537634 &
AC.No.923030005944472. Both the Loan/OD accounts have been
opened only after Mrs. N. Seetha retired as the partner and after
change of partnership deed in the year 2019 itself. The partners and
the signatories post change of partnership deed are Mrs. Preethika
and Mr. Kandarp Pandya and the property owned by Mrs. Preethika
have been given to the bank as a security to avail the OD/Loan
account. As such, now the bank is threatening to proceed with
attaching the property and take possession. Therefore, the attachment
of OD/Loan account is unjust, illegal and also not in the practise of
GST Act. The loan and OD account held with Axis Bank bearing
AC.No.919030097537634 & AG.No. 923030005944472 should be
defreezed immediately.
It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow
the Writ Petition and pass such further or other orders as this Hon’ble
__________
Page22 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and
thus render justice.”
21. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, the learned counsel for the
petitioner in W.P.Nos.16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026, the learned Additional
Government Pleader for R1 to R3 in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, the learned Special
Government Pleader for R1 to R3 in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, the learned
Government Advocate for R1 to R3 in W.P.No.6074 of 2026, the learned
counsel for R4 to R6 in W.P.No.3204 of 2024, and the learned counsel for R4 in
W.P.No.6074 of 2026.
22. As narrated above, the impugned recovery notices issued under
Section 79(1)(c) read with 145(1) of the respective GST Rules in FORM GST
DRC-13 seeks to attach the bank accounts of the respective petitioners. They
arise on account of the default committed by CBIGS Advertising Pvt Ltd.,
which was incorporated on 12.01.2009 and was subsequently ordered to be
wound up voluntarily and liquidated by the NCLT by its Order dated
29.10.2025.
23. The application for its liquidation was filed under Sections 271(e) and
272 of the Companies Act, 2013, though the said company failed to pay its
__________
Page23 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
admitted tax liability on the supplies made and recorded in GSTR-1 during the
Tax Period 2017-2018.
24. During the aforesaid period, the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024,
namely N.Seetha, was one of its directors. The respective impugned
communications / recovery notices have been issued in light of the arrears of
tax, which is recoverable in terms of Section 75(12) of the respective GST
enactment from the company under liquidation, namely CBIGS Advertising
Private Limited, pursuant to the Order dated 29.10.2025 of NCLT, Chennai.
25. The scheme under Section 88(3) of the respective GST enactments
makes it clear that when a private company is wound up and any tax, interest or
penalty determined under this Act on the company for any period, whether
before or in the course of or after its liquidation, cannot be recovered, then
every person who was a director of such company at any time during the
period for which the tax was due shall, jointly and severally, be liable for
the payment of such tax, interest or penalty, unless he proves to the
satisfaction of the Commissioner that such non-recovery cannot be attributed to
any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the
affairs of the company.
__________
Page24 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
26. Section 88 of the respective GST Enactments, which reads as under:-
“Section 88. Liability in case of company in liquidation
(1) When any company is being would up whether under
the orders of a Court or Tribunal or otherwise, every person
appointed as receiver of any assets of a company (hereafter in this
section referred to as the “liquidator”), shall, within thirty days after
his appointment, give intimation of his appointment to the
Commissioner.
(2) The Commissioner shall, after making such inquiry
or calling for such information as he may deem fit, notify the
liquidator whith three months from the date on which he receives
intimation of the appointment of the liquidator, the amount which in
the opinion of the Commissioner would be sufficient to provide for
any tax, interest or penalty which is then, or is likely thereafter to
become, payable by the company.
(3) When any private company is would up and any tax,
interest or panalty determined under this Act on the company for any
period, whether before or in the course of or after its liquidation,
cannot be recovered, then every person who was a director of such
company at any time during the period for which the tax was due
shall, jointly and severally, be liable for the payment of such tax,
interest or penalty, unless he proves to the satisfaction of the
Commissioner that such non-recovery cannot be attributed to any
gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to
the affairs of the company.”
27. Since the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024 was a director of the
said company from 2014-2015 to 2019-2020 (specifically, between 26.07.2014
to 20.09.2019), she is liable. Thus, the amount of tax, penalty and interest that
are due from the said company namely CBIGS Advertising Private Limited can
be recovered from the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, namely
Mrs.N.Seetha. Since the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, namely
Mrs.N.Seetha is also the partner in the Petitioner in W.P. No. 3204 of 2024, the
__________
Page25 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
amount due for the said company can be recovered from the account of the
Petitioner in W.P.No. 3204 of 2024.
28. The burden of proof that the tax default was not on account of the
said petitioner i.e., the Petitioner in W.P. No. 16529 of 2024, but on account of
Mrs. Rama Krishnan or Krishnan, is to be discharged only before the
Commissioner, as is contemplated under Section 88(3) of the respective GST
enactment.
29. Therefore, the impugned notice in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, seeking to
attach the bank account of the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024 namely
Mrs.N.Seetha to recover a sum of Rs.2,66,42,308/- towards the liability of the
company under liquidation, cannot be interfered with. At best, liberty can be
given to the said petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, namely Mrs.N.Seetha to
work out her remedy within the statutory framework of Section 88(3) of the
respective GST enactments.
30. Since the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024 is also a partner of
CBIGS Apparels and Jewels (petitioner in W.P.No.3204 of 2024), the challenge
to the impugned communication dated 19.10.2023 addressed to R4 to R6 in
W.P.No.3204 of 2024 also cannot be countenanced, as the petitioner in
W.P.No.16529 of 2024 namely Mrs.N.Seetha was the initial partner of the said
__________
Page26 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
firm, after the execution and registration of the partnership deed on 13.11.2015
and continued after default was made in the said company.
31. Merely, because, the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024 resigned
subsequently only on 28.06.2019, and in her place, her son-in-law, namely
Mr.Kandarp Pandya, was inducted as a partner along with her daughter, namely
Mrs. Preethika for the Petitioner therein in W.P. No. 3204 of 2024 is of no
anvil. Incidentally, Mrs.N.Seetha, the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, and
her husband, namely Mr.S.Nagarajan, and also their daughter, namely
Mrs.Preethika, were promoters / directors of the defaulting company, namely
CBIGS Advertising Private Limited. Therefore, all are liable to be proceeded
under Section 88(3) of the respective GST Enactments.
32. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned communication issued to R4
to R6 impugned in W.P.No.3204 of 2024 on account of tax arrears from the
directors of the defaulting company, namely CBIGS Advertising Private
Limited from its directors, namely Mrs.N.Seetha, the petitioner in
W.P.No.16529 of 2024, and her daughter, namely Mrs. Preethika, and her
husband, namely Mr.S.Nagarajan, cannot be countenanced.
33. Therefore, W.P.No.16529 of 2024 and W.P.No.3204 of 2024 are
liable to be dismissed. However, it is open for these persons to substantiate their
__________
Page27 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
case in terms of Section 88(3) of the respective GST enactments before the
competent authority.
34. As far as the writ petition filed by Yantur Manufacturing Pvt Ltd in
W.P.No.6074 of 2026 is concerned, it is noticed that the said company was
incorporated on 25.11.2020 with the said Mrs.Preethika and her husband,
namely Mr.Kandarp Pandya, as its Promoters / Directors. They have subscribed
to 30,000 shares each, out of 1,00,000 shares of Rs. 10 each.
35. The said company has been incorporated with different activities,
namely:-
“To manufacture all types of Chemical products such as
medicines, drugs, vitamins, tonics, ointments, vitality tablets,
chemicals, spirits, mixtures, powders, tablets, pills, capsules,
injections, balms, oils, compounds, extracts, tincture, mouth
washes, cosmetics, toiletries, soaps, detergents, shampoo, creams,
scents, perfumes and perfumery products including deodorizers,
perfumed bath salts, flavors, sprays, scalp lotions, hair oil, hair
dyes and tooth pastes and other goods used in nature cure or any
other units.
2. To engage in the business of manufacturing, distributing,
supply, market and sale of Chemical products such as Cold relief
oil, Pain balm, Roll-ons, Sugar free and sugared tablets and
powdered form, Dhoop sticks and Agarbattis, Hand sanitizer,
Floral water, Mineral water, Fruit drinks and all kinds of allied
products.
3. To manufacture Chemical products such as soaps, classic
medicines, Hair oil, Shampoo, Diabetic medicines, Vitality tablets,
__________
Page28 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026Slimming capsules, Cough syrup, Antacid, Herbal powder and
Herbal drinks, Sugar free and Sugared Stevia and all kinds of allied
products in sachet and pet bottles or otherwise”
36. In the said company also Mrs. Seetha Nagarajan, the petitioner in
W.P.No.16529 of 2024, served as a director on 30.11.2021 and later resigned on
28.03.2023. The records filed before this Court, particularly Form No. DIR-12,
show that Mrs. Seetha Nagarajan was the director of the said company from
30.11.2021 until her resignation on 28.03.2023 under Section 168 of the
Companies Act, 2013. This form has been signed by Mr. Sundaram Nagarajan,
who is the husband of Mrs. N. Seetha, the father of Mrs. Preethika and the
father-in-law of Mr.Kandarp Pandya.
37. In fact, the list of directors of the defaulting company, furnished by
the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024, states that Mr. Sundaram Nagarajan
was also a director of the company between 12.01.2009 and 31.10.2013 along
with his daughter Mrs.Preethika, who later served between 04.02.2009 and
31.03.2013. Prima facie indications are that all the companies and partnerships
have been incorporated, and the seat of directors and partners have been
swapped among the family members.
38. Prima facie indications are that the incorporation of the petitioner in
W.P.No.6074 of 2026 was also for the purpose of avoiding payment of tax
__________
Page29 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
arrears and may warrant lifting of the corporate veil, though the said company is
an independent entity and is liable to tax.
39. However, the facts show that the petitioner in W.P.No.16529 of 2024,
namely Mrs. N. Seetha, her husband Mr. Nagarajan, and their daughter
Mrs.Preethika, along with her husband Mr.Kandarp Pandya, have incorporated
the said company, namely Yantur Manufacturing Private Limited, the Petitioner
in W.P. No. 6074 of 2026. Mr.Nagarajan also continues to be its director, he
was also a director of the CBIGS Advertising Private Limited. Therefore, there
is scope for lifting the corporate veil.
40. In the light of the above discussions, all these writ petitions are liable
to be dismissed, and are accordingly, dismissed. No costs. Connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
07.07.2026
av/raja
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
1.The Joint Commissioner
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
GST, Greams Road, Chennai- 06.
__________
Page30 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
2.The Assistant Commissioner (st)
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No. 88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet, Chennai – 600 031.
3.The State Tax Officer
Nungambakkam Assessment Circle,
No.88, Mayor Ramanathan Salai,
Chetpet Chennai – 600 031.
__________
Page31 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.Nos.3204 & 16529 of 2024 and 6074 of 2026
C.SARAVANAN, J.
av/raja
Pre-delivery Order in
W.P.Nos. 3204 & 16529 of 2024
and
W.P.No.6074 of 2026
07.07.2026
__________
Page32 of 32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
