M/s. Penta Auto Equipments Pvt Ltd v. Deputy Director Directorate General of Goods and service Tax Intelligence Hosur Regional Unit & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 05 Feb 2026
- Bench
- C SARAVANAN
Outcome
Disposed of
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 1414. Upon such appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore shall dispose of the appeal on merits, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page6 of 815. This writ…
Judgment
WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page1 of 8IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05-02-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANANWP No. 4025 of 2026 and WMP.No.4496 of 2026M/s. Penta Auto Equipments Pvt LtdSF No 301 5, L and T Bye Pass Road, Madukkarai, Coimbatore – 641 105. Rep by its Managing Director Shri Ramakrishnan Venkatachalam..Petitioner(s)Vs1.Deputy DirectorDirectorate General of Goods and serviceTax Intelligence Hosur Regional Unit121A(CMS Towers)Near Seventh Day Adventist SchoolAppavu Nagar, Hosur-635 109.
Assistant Commissioner of GST and CentralExcise, Coimbatore III Division1667, Aditya TowersTrichy Road, Coimbatore -641 045...Respondent(s)Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records in and connected with the impugned order of the 2nd respondent made in Order-in-Original No. 21/2025 AC dated 22.09.2025 emanating from File C. No.GEXCOM/SCN/GST/1842/2025 confirming demands and penalty under Section 74 of GST, 2017, quash the same as the same is without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme of the GST Act, 2017. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page2 of 8For Petitioner(s):Mr. B.Sathish SundarFor Respondent(s):Mr.Sai Srujan Tayi Senior Standing CounselM/s. Pooja JainJunior Standing CounselORDERMr. Sai Srujan Tayi, learned Senior Standing Counsel, takes notice for the Respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents.
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Order-in-Original No.21/2025 (AC) dated 22.09.2025 passed under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments by the 2nd Respondent, whereby the proposal contained in the Show Cause Notice No.26/2025-GST dated 04.11.2024 has been confirmed against the Petitioner.
The specific case of the Petitioner is that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’. The Petitioner had classified the said product viz., ‘hand operated grease pump’ under the Sub- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page3 of 8Heading 8413 11 10 - ‘Hand pumps’ under Sub-Heading 8413 11 - ‘Pumps for dispensing fuel or lubricants, of the type used in filling stations or in garages’ which falls under Heading 8413 - ‘Pumps for liquids, whether or not fitted with a measuring device’ in Chapter 84 to Section XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
The petitioner are liable to pay tax for the said products viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ under the Sub-Heading 8413 11 10 - ‘Hand Pumps’ under Sub-Heading 8413 11 - ‘Pumps for dispensing fuel or lubricants, of the type used in filling stations or in garages’ at 5% in terms of Notification No.1/2017-Central Tax(Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
However, the respondents have fixed the tax liability at 18% by classifying the product manufactured by the petitioner a ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ under Heading 8205 59 10 - ‘Grease guns (excluding compressed air type’ in Chapter 82 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner entertained a bona fide belief that the product ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ merits classification under the Sub-Heading 8413 11 10 - ‘Hand pumps’ under Sub-Heading 8413 11 - ‘Pumps for dispensing fuel or lubricants, of the type used in filling stations or in garages’ at 5% for the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page4 of 8purpose of clarification and payment of tax under the relevant notifications, as was applicable earlier under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been engaged in the manufacture of the aforesaid product viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ even prior to the implementation of GST and had classified the very same product viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ under Heading 8424 20 10 in Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.
It is therefore submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is inconceivable how the Respondent could allege and confirm suppression of facts by invoking machinery under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments, when the petitioner had consistently followed the same classification for the said product viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’.
It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said classification which was adopted earlier under the Central Excise regime continued with effect from 01.07.2017 under the respective GST Enactments and therefore, the demand confirmed is liable to be dropped. Even otherwise, it is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner would be liable to pay tax only at 12% and not at 18% as demanded by the Respondents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page5 of 811. Considering the fact that the issue pertains to classification and also involves the invocation of extended period of limitation under Section 74 of the respective GST Enactments, this Court is of the view that the case is left to be best decided by the Appellate Authority under the provisions of the respective GST Enactments.
That apart, the petitioner classified the product viz., ‘Hand Operated Grease Pump’ manufactured by them under Heading 8424 20 10 in Chapter 84 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 and Heading Heading 8413 11 10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 under GST regime.
Operative part
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the present case, the prescribed Appellate Authority is the Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore.
Upon such appeal being filed, the Appellate Authority, namely, the Joint Commissioner of GST and Central Excise (Appeals), Coimbatore shall dispose of the appeal on merits, as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page6 of 815. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.05-02-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page7 of 8To1.Deputy DirectorDirectorate General of Goods and serviceTax Intelligence Hosur Regional Unit121A(CMS Towers)Near Seventh Day Adventist SchoolAppavu Nagar, Hosur-635 1092.Assistant Commissioenr of GST and CentralExcise coimbatore III Division1667, Aditya TowersTrichy Road, Coimbatore -641 045 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 4025 of 2026__________Page8 of 8C .SARAVANAN, J.avWP No. 4025 of 2026 and WMP.No.4496 of 202605-02-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; XVI of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Customs Tariff Act, 1975 — ch. 82; Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 — ch. 84.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 05 Feb 2026. The bench was C SARAVANAN.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.