Obuli Mukesh EnterpriseRepresented by its Proprietor M.Obulirajan 6/715 A v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Kondalampatty Circle, Salem
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Outcome
Set aside
Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.…
Judgment
WP No. 18487 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 04-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 18487 of 2026andW.M.P. Nos.19825 and 19830 of 2026 Obuli Mukesh EnterpriseRepresented by its Proprietor M.Obulirajan 6/715 A, Gandhi Nagar, Maniyanoor, Salem 636 010...PetitionerVsAssistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Kondalampatty Circle, Salem...RespondentPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the Respondent herein in FORM GST DRC-07 with Reference No ZD330225043733O dated 05.02.2025 in GSTN 33AAFPO9620D1ZX/2O2O-21 dated 05.02.2025 and quash the same .For Petitioner: Mr.N.ChandirasekarFor Respondent: Mr.L.Gokulraj, Govt. Counsel (Tax) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18487 of 2026__________Page2 of 4ORDERAn order dated 05.02.2025 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground of alleged breach of principles of natural justice.
Mr.L.Gokulraj, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed long after the period of limitation expired.
On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand. An endorsement to that effect is made on the bundle.
Operative part
Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18487 of 2026__________Page3 of 46. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.04-06-2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NokjToThe Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Kondalampatty Circle, Salem. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18487 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.kjWP No. 18487 of 2026andW.M.P. Nos.19825 and 19830 of 202604-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
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.