Tamil Nadu v. Assistant Commissioner / Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Outcome
Set aside
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, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 22382 of 2026__________Page3 of 45. Subject to the condition…
Judgment
WP No. 22382 of 2026__________Page1 of 4IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 22-06-2026CORAMTHE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYWP No. 22382 of 2026and W.M.P.No.24287 of 2026ARVAUTO Ecom Private LimitedRepresented by its Director Mr. Vignesh MohanPlot No 15, Chithamanur Industrial Area Part II,Maraimalai Nagar, Chengalpattu-603 209Tamil Nadu...Petitioner(s)VsAssistant Commissioner / Assistant Commissioner (ST),Pondy Bazaar, Central III, Chennai CentralPondy Bazaar Assessment CircleNo.46, Greenways Road, Chennai- 028...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 in the file of the Respondent and quash the Impugned order under section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 having GSTIN 33AASCA1282B1ZZ dated 27.12.2025 reference No ZD331225410712W along with Summary of the Order dated 27.12.2025 passed by the Respondent for the FY 2021-22. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 22382 of 2026__________Page2 of 4For Petitioner(s):Mr.G.S.Krishna Sampathfor Mr.N.V. BalajiFor Respondent(s):Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax)***********ORDERAn order dated 27.12.2025 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 such order was issued without hearing the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed shortly after the period of limitation expired.
Operative part
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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 22382 of 2026__________Page3 of 45. 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, 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.6. 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.22-06-2026Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoRNAToAssistant Commissioner / Assistant Commissioner (ST),Pondy Bazaar, Central III, Chennai CentralPondy Bazaar Assessment CircleNo.46, Greenways Road, Chennai- 028. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 22382 of 2026__________Page4 of 4SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.RNAWP No. 22382 of 2026and W.M.P.No.24287 of 202622-06-2026
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 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. 73; 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.