Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49645

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.19825 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.21147 of 2026

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

The High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside an assessment order and grant a remand for de novo adjudication when the petitioner agrees to pay a portion of the disputed tax, provided there appears to be a breach of natural justice.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a writ petition under Art.226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of assessment on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. Given that the limitation period for filing a statutory appeal had elapsed, the court considered the petitioner's willingness to remit a portion of the tax demand. The court determined that in the interest of justice and to ensure a fair hearing, the impugned order should be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration subject to the petitioner making a pre-deposit. The central issue was whether the impugned order, passed without adherence to natural justice, should be vacated after the period for statutory appeal had expired. The ratio decidendi established that where a taxpayer acknowledges liability by offering to deposit a portion of the disputed tax, the court may exercise its discretionary power to remand the matter for adjudication on merits to avoid manifest injustice. The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded for re-consideration, contingent upon the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days.

Table of Content
1. conditional remand of tax assessment orders upon pre-deposit. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 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/2020-2021 – Order Ref.No.ZD330225166292M, quash the order dated 18.02.2025 passed therein.

O R D E R

1. An order dated 18.02.2025 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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49645

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASSenthilkumar Ramamoorthy, JSri Mahaganapathi Steels and Cements – AppellantVersusState Tax Officer – RespondentW.P.No.19825 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.21147 of 2026

The High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside an assessment order and grant a remand for de novo adjudication when the petitioner agrees to pay a portion of the disputed tax, provided there appears to be a breach of natural justice.

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.19825 of 2026 | W.M.P.No.21147 of 2026