Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Outcome
Set aside
21624 of 2026__________Page3 of 4the 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 writ miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.16-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoRNAToThe State Tax Officer (DAU-2)Office of the Commercial tax officer, Hosur Intelligence Division, Hosur, Tamil nadu…
Judgment
WP No. 21624 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 21624 of 2026and W.M.P.No.23414 of 2026M/s Sai Krishna Steel IndustiresRep by its Authorised Signatory Dilipkumar Muthukrishnan.SY.NO.196-198, Thippanapalli Village, Billanakuppam, Vepanapalli Road, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu 635115..Petitioner(s)VsThe State Tax Officer (DAU-2)Office of the Commercial tax officer, Hosur Intelligence Division, Hosur, Tamil nadu..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 relating to the impugned proceedings initiated by the Respondent in the impugned order in FORM GST DRC - 07 bearing ref No. ZD331125289946Y dated 17.11.2025 along with Annexure vide GSTIN 33AAHCT8823G1Z8/2019-20 dated 17.11.2025 passed by the respondent for the AY 2019-20 to quash the same. For Petitioner(s):Ms.R. Hemalatha https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21624 of 2026__________Page2 of 4For Respondent(s):Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, Government Counsel (Tax)************ORDERAn 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.
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.
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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21624 of 2026__________Page3 of 4the 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 writ miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.16-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoRNAToThe State Tax Officer (DAU-2)Office of the Commercial tax officer, Hosur Intelligence Division, Hosur, Tamil nadu https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21624 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.RNAWP No. 21624 of 2026and W.M.P.No.23414 of 202616-06-2026
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 21624 of 2026__________Page3 of 4the 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.