Jamilahbeevi SahulhameedNo.56 v. Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central ExciseMaraimalai Nagar Division
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Outcome
Set aside
Subject to the remittance of 50% 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 remittance of 50% 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…
Judgment
WP No. 18799 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 05.06.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 18799 of 2026andW.M.P. Nos.20083 and 20085 of 2026 Jamilahbeevi SahulhameedNo.56, Nethaji Nagar, 1st Main Road Urapakkam, Kancheepuram, Tamil Nadu 603 210..PetitionerVs1.Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central ExciseMaraimalai Nagar Division, Plot No. 40 Ranga Colony, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai – 600 073.
Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, Intelligence, Puducherry Regional Unit Nos. 42 and 43, Second Cross Street, Peter Nagar, Puducherry 605 013...RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorari to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent of Order in Reference No ZD331224249851H passed under Section 74 of the TNGST Act, 2017 dated 27.12.2024 for the FY2020-2021 passed by the 1st respondent and quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr.Sivaraman RFor Respondents: Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Panel Counsel andMr.T.Nalinidhar, Junior Panel Counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18799 of 2026__________Page2 of 4ORDERAn order dated 27.12.2024 is impugned primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.2. Mr.A.P.Srinivas, learned Senior Panel Counsel and Mr.T.Nalinidhar, learned Junior Panel Counsel, accept notice for the respondents.
On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner had not responded to the show cause notice.
On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 50% of the disputed tax demand under the impugned order as a condition for remand. He has also made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle.
Operative part
Subject to the remittance of 50% 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 the petitioner making the remittance of 50% of disputed tax demand. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18799 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.05.06.2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NommiTo1.The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Maraimalai Nagar Division, Plot No. 40 Ranga Colony, Rajakilpakkam, Chennai – 73.2.The Directorate General of Goods and Services Tax, Intelligence ,Puducherry Regional Unit Nos. 42 and 43, Second Cross Street, Peter Nagar, Puducherry 605 013. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18799 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.mmiWP No. 18799 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 50% 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.