Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 58110 (MAD)

M/s.RM Trading Company LLP v. The State Tax officer(ST)

WP/27424/2026 · 2026-07-27

Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Transfer Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

WP No. 27424 of 2026 __________ Page1 of 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27-07-2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY WP No. 27424 of 2026 and WMP No.30053 of 2026 M/s.RM Trading Company LLP Represented by its Partner Mr. A.N.Rajendiran., GSTIN 33AAXFR9652G1ZJ, Ground Floor, No.2, Shyam Sundar Apartment, Ramanadhan Street, Kilpauk, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 6000010 ..Petitioner(s) Vs The State Tax Officer (ST) Kilpaulk Assessment Circle No.1, PAPJA Annex Building 3rd Floor, Greams Road Chennai-600 006 ..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 relating to the impugned order Ref.No.33AAXFR96552G1ZJ/2021-22 dated 26.12.2025 along with summary of order in DRC 07 bearing Ref. No. ZD331225405621W dated 26.12.2025 passed by the Respondent and quash the same being arbitrary, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the constitution and lift the bank attachment order vide notice in Form DRC 13 dated 8.5.2026 issued by the respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27424 of 2026 __________ Page2 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr.G.Natarajan For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Dinakaran Government Counsel (Tax) ORDER Order dated 26.12.2025 is assailed primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not provided a reasonable opportunity to submit supporting documents. 2.Adverting to the petitioner’s replies, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proper officer was informed that the petitioner deals only in unbranded onion and that such supplies are fully exempt. Without prejudice, learned counsel submits that the petitioner agrees to remit a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. He has made an endorsement to that effect. 3.Subject to the petitioner remitting a sum of Rs.15 lakhs towards the tax demand under the impugned order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded so as to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to submit supporting documents to establish that the supplies were exempt. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within a period of three (3) months from the date of remittance of Rs.15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27424 of 2026 __________ Page3 of 4 lakhs by the petitioner. Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the attachment, if any, of the bank account of the petitioner in relation to the impugned order shall stand raised. 4.The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 27-07-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KAS To. The State Tax Officer (ST) Kilpaulk Assessment Circle No.1, PAPJA Annex Building 3rd Floor, Greams Road Chennai-600 006 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 27424 of 2026 __________ Page4 of 4 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J. KAS WP No. 27424 of 2026 27-07-2026 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis