M ArumugamRep. by its Proprietor M. Arumugam v. The Deputy State Tax Officer 2 (ST)Thirukazhukundram Assessment Circle
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Outcome
Set aside
18607 of 2026__________Page3 of 4receipt 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 66. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.03.06.2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NommiToThe Deputy State Tax Officer 2 (ST)Thirukazhukundram Assessment Circle, No.42, Wahab Nagar, Thirukazhukundram – 603 109. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP…
Judgment
WP No. 18607 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 03.06.2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 18607 of 2026andW.M.P. Nos.19927 and 19929 of 2026M ArumugamRep. by its Proprietor M. Arumugam, No.1/91, Jeeva Nagar, 3rd Street, Pudupattinam 603 102..PetitionerVsThe Deputy State Tax Officer 2 (ST)Thirukazhukundram Assessment Circle, No.42, Wahab Nagar, Thirukazhukundram – 603 109...RespondentPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Reference No. ZD331225163315O / FY 2021-2022 dated 11.12.2025, passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 in Form GST DRC-07 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, and consequently remand the matter back to the Respondent for fresh consideration after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. For Petitioner: Mr.Suresh TFor Respondent: Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Govt. Counsel (Tax) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18607 of 2026__________Page2 of 4ORDERAn order dated 11.12.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.
Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the 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.
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, as agreed to, within thirty days from the date of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18607 of 2026__________Page3 of 4receipt 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.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.03.06.2026Index: Yes/NoNeutral Citation: Yes/NommiToThe Deputy State Tax Officer 2 (ST)Thirukazhukundram Assessment Circle, No.42, Wahab Nagar, Thirukazhukundram – 603 109. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 18607 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.mmiWP No. 18607 of 202603.06.2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 18607 of 2026__________Page3 of 4receipt 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.