and C. SARAVANAN ,J .

Today, this matter is listed under the caption “For being mentioned”

at the instance of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are factual errors in the order dated 19.01.2026 to the extend it directs the petitioner to deposit 25% of disputed tax and in as much it records that the period for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST Enactments against the impugned order has expired.

3. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that instead of “10% of the disputed tax”, it has been wrongly mentioned as “25% of the disputed tax” in Paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 11 of the order dated 19.01.2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed a memo to that effect.

4. The learned Government Advocate for the Respondent raises no objection and confirms the same.

5. This Court has verified the records and is convinced with the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. In the light of the above, Paragraph No.5 of the order dated

19.01.2026 shall stand deleted and consequently, Paragraph Nos.6, 7, 8 and 11 shall be modified as follows:

6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication. 7. Under similar circumstances, Orders have been quashed and cases have been remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on terms subject to such Assessee depositing 10% to 100% of the disputed tax depending upon the length of delay in approaching the Court. I do not find any reason to take a different view in this case.

8. Therefore, to balance the interest of both parties viz., the Assessee and the Revenue, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax in cash or from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

11. It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

7. All other aspects of the order dated 19.01.2026 shall remain intact.

8. Registry is directed to make necessary corrections and issue a fresh order copies to the parties.

11.02.2026 Jd C. SARAVANAN , J .

jd and W.M.P.Nos.1132 & 1133 of 2026

11.02.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 19.01.2026 CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2026 Ramanathan Muruganathan [Trade Name:Tvl.SRIRAM ENGINEERS]

Represented by its Proprietor, Plot No.28, Sri Mahalakshmi Cooperative Nagar, Survey No.742/2, Thirumudivakkam Kundrathur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 044. ... Petitioner Vs.

The Commercial Tax Officer, Thirumudivakkam: Chengalpattu:

Tamil Nadu. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the order of Assessment in DRC – 07 bearing Reference No.ZD331025388121S in GSTIN/ID:33AOOPR7242D1ZU/Apr 2021 – Mar 2022 dated 31.10.2025 passed by the Respondent and to quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Maharajan For Respondent : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate

ORDER

Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate takes notice for the Respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order dated 31.10.2025, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 05.06.2025 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to appear for personal hearing.