Petros Promoters Private LimitedRep. by its Director v. The Assistant CommissionerHosur (South) III Assessment Circle
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Subject to adjustment of amounts already recovered and the remittance of 50% of the disputed tax demand in the aggregate, 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 44. Subject to adjustment of amounts already recovered and the remittance of 50% of the disputed tax demand in the aggregate, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is…
Judgment
WP No. 21106 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 21106 of 2026and WMP.Nos.22842 & 22843 of 2026 Petros Promoters Private LimitedRep. by its Director, K.Ashok Kumar,197/3B, 17, Amman Nagar, Denkanikottai Road, Hosur, Krishnagiri 635109...PetitionerVsThe Assistant CommissionerHosur (South) III Assessment Circle, Integrated commercial tax building, Ground Floor, Seetharam medu old bus stand, Hosur, Krishnagiri 635 109...RespondentPrayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order dated 11.12.2024 in Form GST DRC 07 vide Ref No. ZD331224095976Z bearing GSTIN : 33AALCP6510G1ZK, pertaining to FY 2022-2023 issued by the respondent as arbitrary and illegal and quash the same, and further directing the respondent to redo the adjudication in accordance with law, after granting opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and to pass further orders. For Petitioner: Ms. Mitra BFor Respondent: Mr. R. Sethu PrabakaranGovernment Counsel (Tax) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21106 of 2026__________Page2 of 4ORDERAn order dated 11.12.2024 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground of alleged breach of principles of natural justice.
Mr. R. Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about Rs.19,000/- was recovered from the electronic credit ledger of the petitioner. Subject to adjusting said recovery, she submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 50% of the tax demand as a condition for remand. She has made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle.
Operative part
Subject to adjustment of amounts already recovered and the remittance of 50% of the disputed tax demand in the aggregate, 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 50% of the disputed tax demand in the aggregate. In view of the impugned order being set aside, the attachment, if any, of the bank account of the petitioner shall stand raised. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21106 of 2026__________Page3 of 45. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.12-06-2026Index : Yes/NoNeutral Citation : Yes/NoKJToThe Assistant CommissionerHosur (South) III Assessment Circle, Integrated commercial tax building, Ground Floor, Seetharam medu old bus stand, Hosur, Krishnagiri 635 109. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21106 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.KJWP No. 21106 of 2026and WMP.Nos.22842 & 22843 of 202612-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to adjustment of amounts already recovered and the remittance of 50% of the disputed tax demand in the aggregate, 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.