R.K. ConstructionsRep. by its Proprietor v. The Commercial Tax OfficerSriperumbudur Assessment Circle
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Subject to verifying and confirming that more than 25% of the disputed tax demand was recovered, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.18-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoRNAToThe Commercial Tax OfficerSriperumbudur Assessment Circle, Room No.12, at No.4/109, Ground Floor, Bangalore Chennai Highway, Varadarajapuram…
Judgment
WP No. 21774 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 21774 of 2026and W.M.P.Nos.23595 & 23596 of 2026R.K. ConstructionsRep. by its Proprietor, GEETHA No.42, Nethaji Street,D.K. Naidu Nagar, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District - 602105..Petitioner(s)VsThe Commercial Tax OfficerSriperumbudur Assessment Circle, Room No.12, at No.4/109, Ground Floor, Bangalore Chennai Highway, Varadarajapuram, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Nazrethpet, Chennai- 600 123...Respondent(s)PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07vide Reference No. ZD331125379897U / FY 2021-2022, dated 21.11.2025, passed by the Respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST / CGST Act, 2017, and quash the same and consequently direct the Respondent to reconsider the matter afresh, after affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and permitting the Petitioner to submit all relevant supporting documents. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21774 of 2026__________Page2 of 4For Petitioner(s):Mr.Suresh TFor Respondent(s):Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, Government Counsel (Tax)***********ORDERAn order dated 21.11.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.
Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, 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.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than 25% of the tax demand was recovered pursuant to the impugned order. This aspect is required to be verified and confirmed.
Operative part
Subject to verifying and confirming that more than 25% of the disputed tax demand was recovered, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21774 of 2026__________Page3 of 4remanded 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. Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the bank attachment shall stand raised.
The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.18-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoRNAToThe Commercial Tax OfficerSriperumbudur Assessment Circle, Room No.12, at No.4/109, Ground Floor, Bangalore Chennai Highway, Varadarajapuram, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Nazrethpet, Chennai- 600 123. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21774 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.RNAWP No. 21774 of 2026and W.M.P.Nos.23595 & 23596 of 202618-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Subject to verifying and confirming that more than 25% of the disputed tax demand was recovered, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is
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.