Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Chinnaswamy Nagaraj – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Respondent
W.M.P.Nos.18231 & 18232 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T.Ramesh, R.Sri Visvapriya
For the Respondents: L.Gokulraj

An assessment order passed without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication upon the assessee's compliance with specified tax deposit conditions.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an assessment order and a subsequent rectification order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, alleging a breach of the principles of natural justice because the orders were issued without providing the petitioner a hearing. The respondent contended that the limitation period for challenging the initial order had expired. Upon review, the court acknowledged the lack of a hearing but noted the significant delay. The core issue was whether the impugned orders, passed without granting an opportunity for a hearing, were sustainable despite the expiration of the limitation period. The court determined that the petitioner’s consent to remit 50% of the disputed SGST demand provided a basis for reconsideration under conditions. The court set aside the impugned orders, remanded the matter for fresh consideration subject to the condition of remitting 50% of the disputed tax within thirty days, and ordered that a fresh assessment order be issued within three months of compliance.

Table of Content
1. violation of natural justice in tax assessments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. conditional remand for fresh assessment upon partial payment. (Para 6)

ORDER

An order in original dated 25.10.2023 and a rectification order dated

03.05.2024 are challenged in this writ petition on the ground of alleged breach of principles of natural justice.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 50% of the entire demand towards CGST, including interest and penalty, was paid by the petitioner.

3. Mr.L.Gokulraj, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice for the respondent. He submits that the period of limitation for challenging the order in original has long expired.

4. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner. However, as contended by learned counsel for the respondent, the limitation period has expired.

5. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner consents to remit

50% of the demand towards SGST. An endorsement to that effect has been made on the bundle.

6. Subject to fulfilment of the above condition of remitting 50% of the SGST demand within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, 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 compliance of the condition. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 45854

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASSenthilkumar Ramamoorthy, JChinnaswamy Nagaraj – AppellantVersusAssistant Commissioner (ST) – RespondentW.M.P.Nos.18231 & 18232 of 2026

An assessment order passed without providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice, warranting a remand for fresh adjudication upon the assessee's compliance with specified tax deposit conditions.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Chinnaswamy Nagaraj – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Respondent
W.M.P.Nos.18231 & 18232 of 2026