Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53320 (MAD)

Saravana Textiles v. State Tax Officer, Chennai

2026-06-02

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

body2026
ORDER : 1. An order dated 30.08.2024 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. Ms. R. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, 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 50% 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 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-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 50% of the disputed tax demand. 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.