Sri Ayyanar HardwaresRep. by its Proprietor v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Set aside
Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% 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
Judgment
WP No. 21352 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 15-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 21352 of 2026ANDWMP NO. 23110 OF 2026, WMP NO. 23112 OF 2026Sri Ayyanar HardwaresRep. by its Proprietor, Thulasi Raman Chithirai Pandian, No.23, Bazar Road, Balaha Garden, Madipakkam, Kancheepuram 600 091...Petitioner(s)VsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST),Madipakkam Assessment Circle, Room No. 308, 3rd Floor, No. 46 Greenways Road, Taluk Office Building, Raja AnnamalaipuramChennai 600 028...Respondent(s)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the Respondent herein in impugned order in Form DRC-07 having reference No.ZD3304250428975 dated 04.04.2025 for the financial year 2018-19 passed under Section 74 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 herein after referred to as GST Act, 2017 and quash the same as arbitrary, unjust and illegal and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the respondent to consider the matter afresh on merits after providing an opportunity of personal hearing. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21352 of 2026__________Page2 of 4For Petitioner(s):Mr.Parthiban V.For Respondent(s):Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax)ORDERAn order dated 04.04.2025 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground of alleged breach of principles of natural justice.2.Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.3.The period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand. An endorsement to that effect is made on the bundle.4.Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% 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 remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21352 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.15-06-2026Index: NoSpeaking orderNeutral Citation: NoMKNToThe Assistant Commissioner (ST),Madipakkam Assessment Circle, Room No. 308, 3rd Floor, No. 46 Greenways Road, Taluk Office Building, Raja AnnamalaipuramChennai 600 028. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21352 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.MKNWP No. 21352 of 202615-06-2026
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, 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; Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 — s. 74; Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
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.