Sivan ConstructionsNo 9 v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)Cuddalore Assessment Circle,Cuddalore
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Outcome
Set aside
Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand 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 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. 19831 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 09-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 19831 of 2026and W.M.P.Nos.21163 & 21164 of 2026 Sivan ConstructionsNo 9A Block 31 Beach RoadPudupalayam Cuddalore 607 001Rep by its Partner Mr.B.DINESH KUMARAN..Petitioner(s)VsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST)Cuddalore Assessment Circle, Cuddalore...Respondent(s)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent relating to the assessment order passed under section 73 and 51 for the year 2021-2022 in reference no. ZD3311252998351 dated 17.11.2025 quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass order in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of Personal Hearing. For Petitioner(s):Mr.R.RamkumarFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, Government Counsel (Tax)******** https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19831 of 2026__________Page2 of 4ORDER An order dated 17.11.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.
Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, 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 shortly after the period of limitation expired.
On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. An endorsement to that effect has been made on the bundle.
Operative part
Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand 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. 19831 of 2026__________Page3 of 4 6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.09-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoRNAToThe Assistant Commissioner (ST)Cuddalore Assessment Circle, Cuddalore. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19831 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.RNAWP No. 19831 of 2026and W.M.P.Nos.21163 & 21164 of 202609-06-2026
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 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.