Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 53871 (MAD)

MMC Pharmaceuticals Limited v. The Superintendent

WP/26513/2026 · 2026-07-22

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

WP No. 26513 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 22-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY WP No. 26513 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.29008 of 2026 MMC Pharmaceuticals Limited Represented by its Authorized Representative, Mr. Thirunavukarasu M, No. 113, Visalakshi Street, Devi Karumariamman Nagar, Valasaravakkam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 087 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The Superintendent Office of the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise Range IV, Valasaravakkam Division chennai south Commissionerate Newry Towers, Ground Floor Plot No.2054 1st Block, 2nd Avenue, 12th Main Road Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records connected to the Impugned Order passed by the Respondent in FORM GST DRC-07, bearing reference no. ZD331225012857I dated 01st December 2025 and the consequential Order-in-Original No. 86/2025 GST S-R4, bearing DIN 20251259TL0000999A5B in relation to the Tax Period 2018 2019 and quash https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 26513 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 the same as being arbitrary and passed in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Mohammed Faizal.A For Respondent(s): Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, Sr. SC ************ ORDER An order dated 01.12.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. 2. Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, learned senior standing counsel, 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 26513 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 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, 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. 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. 22-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RNA To The Superintendent Office of the Superintendent of Central GST and Central Excise Range IV, Valasaravakkam Division chennai south Commissionerate Newry Towers, Ground Floor Plot No.2054 1st Block, 2nd Avenue, 12th Main Road Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 26513 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. RNA WP No. 26513 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.29008 of 2026 22-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis