SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49636

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J
Sri Mahaganapathi Steels and Cements – Appellant
Versus
State Tax Officer – Respondent
W.P.No.19744 of 2026|W.M.P.No.21044 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P.V.Sudakar
For the Respondents: R.Sethu Prabakaran

The High Court may set aside an impugned order and remand a tax matter for re-adjudication, even after the limitation period for an appeal has expired, provided the petitioner demonstrates compliance by paying a portion of the disputed tax demand.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order on the grounds of breach of principles of natural justice. The assessment period had lapsed, resulting in the petitioner being time-barred from appealing. The court examined the feasibility of providing the petitioner an opportunity to contest the demand upon specific compliance conditions. The main issue was whether the impugned order, passed without due adherence to natural justice, should be set aside, and whether the matter could be remanded for fresh adjudication. The court found that conditional relief was appropriate given the petitioner's willingness to rectify the procedural default by making a substantive tax payment. The ratio decidendi rests on the court exercising its discretionary power to remand matters for re-consideration when the petitioner demonstrates readiness to comply with tax liability obligations to ensure natural justice is served. The writ petition is disposed of on terms requiring the petitioner to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.

Table of Content
1. challenge to tax order based on natural justice violation. (Para 1)
2. petitioner's willingness to pay 25% of tax demand despite expiry of appeal period. (Para 2 , 3)
3. conditional remand for re-adjudication upon partial payment of disputed tax. (Para 4 , 5)

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the respondent in his proceedings in GSTIN:33AAMFR0974Q1ZI/2021-2022 – Order Ref.No.ZD330325019318M, quash the order dated 05.03.2025 passed therein.

O R D E R

An order dated 05.03.2025 is impugned primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.

2. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice for 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.

5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top