Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 39839 (MAD)

New Maris Engineering v. Deputy State Tax officer -2

WP/22724/2026 · 2026-06-24

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

WP No. 22724 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24-06-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY WP No. 22724 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.24645 of 2026 New Maris Engineering Represented by its proprietor, Puthiyavinayagam Panchapandavar, No.19, Arunachalam Road, Chennai 600 093 ..Petitioner(s) Vs Deputy State Tax officer -2 Sholinganallur Assessment Circle, Station No 571 Integrated building for Commercial Taxes and Registration Dept (South Tower) Room No 241 2nd Floor, Nandanam Chennai 600 035 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ 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 relating to the Order under bearing DRC-07 Reference No. ZD3312250993088 dated 06.12.2025 read with detailed order No. GSTIN /33BAVPP7615Q1ZP/2021-22 dated 06.12.2025 passed by the respondent and to quash the same as contrary to the provisions of law, violation of principles of natural justice and unsustainable in law and give suitable direction to the Respondent to lift the bank attachment and thus render justice. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 22724 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.S. Krishnakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, Government Counsel (Tax) ********** ORDER An order dated 06.12.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. 3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed after the period of limitation expired. 4. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. An endorsement to that effect has been made on the bundle. 5. Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 22724 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 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. Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the bank attachment shall stand raised. 6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. 24-06-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RNA To Deputy State Tax officer -2 Sholinganallur Assessment Circle, Station No 571 Integrated building for Commercial Taxes and Registration Dept (South Tower) Room No 241 2nd Floor, Nandanam Chennai 600 035 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 22724 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. RNA WP No. 22724 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.24645 of 2026 24-06-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis