Mak Auto Services v. Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Subject to the remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, after verifying and giving credit to the amount, if any, recovered earlier, 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
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.05.06.2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NommiTo1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ramapuram Assessment Circle, 2nd Floor, Room No.235, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Building…
Judgment
WP No. 18745 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.06.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 18745 of 2026andW.M.P. No.20014 of 2026 Mak Auto Services, Represented by its ProprietorMr.Ibunu Swoothu Ahmed Safiullah, No.7, Puthapedu Salai, N.S.C, Bose Nagar, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600 116...PetitionerVs1.Assistant Commissioner (ST),Ramapuram Assessment Circle,2nd Floor, Room No.235, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035.
The Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, New No.22/2, Potters Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015...RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Proceedings dated 13.01.2025 and subsequent Order dated 13.01.2025 bearing Reference No. ZD330125106926L by 1st Respondent and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity to personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act. For Petitioner: Mr.Prajoy.JFor Respondents: Mr.L.Gokulraj, Govt. Counsel (Tax) for R1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18745 of 2026__________Page2 of 4ORDERAn order dated 13.01.2025 is impugned primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.2. Mr.L.Gokulraj, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent.
On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not file any written objection or attend the personal hearing. In view of the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings on account of not being aware of the same, the interest of justice warrants reconsideration subject to putting the petitioner on terms.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than 25% of the tax dues were recovered. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand under the impugned order, if not recovered earlier, as a condition for remand. He has also made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle.
Operative part
Subject to the remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, after verifying and giving credit to the amount, if any, recovered earlier, 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18745 of 2026__________Page3 of 4for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of the petitioner complying with the conditional order. In view of the impugned order being set aside, the attachment, if any, of the bank account of the petitioner in the second respondent bank shall stand raised.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.05.06.2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NommiTo1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ramapuram Assessment Circle, 2nd Floor, Room No.235, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035.2.The Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, New No.22/2, Potters Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18745 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.mmiWP No. 18745 of 202605.06.2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to the remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, after verifying and giving credit to the amount, if any, recovered earlier, 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
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.