Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27360 (MAD)

SRI BHAGYA FIBREGLASS PRODUCTS v. The Deputy State Tax Officer -II

WP/17284/2026 · 2026-06-01

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

WP No. 17284 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 01.06.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY WP No. 17284 of 2026 and W.M.P. Nos.18570 and 18572 of 2026 Sri Bhagya Fibreglass Products Rep by its Proprietrix, Mrs.Kannan Dhanabakyam, No. 3/657, Boomadevi Nagar, Gerugambakkam, Kancheepuram District-600 128. ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Deputy State Tax Officer -II Poonamallee Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai- 600 123. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST ) Poonamallee Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai-600 123. ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in respect of the impugned order bearing GSTIN /33AHYPD9489R1ZZ4/ 2019-20 dated 31.08.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the 1st respondent to afford the petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of personal hearing and adjudicate the matter on merits. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 17284 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 For Petitioner: Ms.E.Preethiga for Mr.T.R.Udaya Kumar For Respondents: Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, Govt. Counsel (Tax) ORDER An order dated 31.08.2024 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 respondents. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the tax proposal was confirmed because the tax payer had not responded to the show cause notices or appeared for the personal hearing. 4. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 50% of the disputed tax demand under the impugned order as a condition for remand. He has also made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle. 5. Subject to the remittance of 50% 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- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 17284 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of the petitioner complying with the conditional order. 6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 01.06.2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mmi To 1. The Deputy State Tax Officer -II Poonamallee Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai- 600 123. 2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST ) Poonamallee Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Department, Chennai-600 123. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 17284 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. mmi WP No. 17284 of 2026 01.06.2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis