Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Tvl a Sikkander Badhusha Vs State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2025)

Home
Madras HC
2025
Tvl a Sikkander Badhusha Vs State Tax OfficerTvl a Sikkander Badhusha v. State Tax Officer

Disposed¶26

Tvl a Sikkander Badhusha v. State Tax Officer

Madras HC24 Apr 2025WP(MD)/1124/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST/Tax writ petition remand case. Keywords: certiorarified mandamus; Article 226 Constitution of India; GSTIN 33ARPPS6592M4ZP/2018-2019; assessment order 05.04.2024; liability Rs.2,36,400/-; BSNL dealer; business closed before annual returns; 25% part-payment condition; four-week payment deadline; three-month fresh consideration deadline; State Tax Officer Tirupathur Assessment Circle Sivagangai District; disposed without costs. Useful for consensual remand pattern where petitioner pays a portion of demanded tax and the assessing officer reconsiders afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned assessment order dated 05.04.2024 set aside; matter remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the demanded amount within four weeks; respondent to pass fresh orders within three months; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Why is it important?

The impugned assessment order dated 05.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration. ¶25

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned assessment order dated 05.04.2024 set aside; matter remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the demanded amount within four weeks; respondent to pass fresh orders within three months; no order as to costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned assessment order vide GSTIN - 33ARPPS6592M4ZP/2018-2019 dated 05.04.2024 should be set aside/quashed and the respondent directed to redo the assessment proceedings for 2018-2019.

Court's answer

The impugned assessment order dated 05.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the demanded amount within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

Key takeaways

The respondent is directed to consider the petitioner's case afresh and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Madurai Bench), W.P.(MD)No.1124 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.758 of 2025, Vivek Kumar Singh, J., 24.04.2025: A BSNL dealer challenged, under Article 226, a GST assessment order dated 05.04.2024 (GSTIN - 33ARPPS6592M4ZP/2018-2019) fixing liability of Rs.2,36,400/- for 2018-2019, contending his business had closed before filing of annual returns and he could not follow the assessment webpage. With both sides consenting (petitioner offering to pay 25% of the demanded amount), the Court set aside the impugned order, directed payment of 25% of the demanded amount within four weeks, and remitted the matter to the State Tax Officer for fresh consideration on merits within three months. Writ petition disposed of without costs; connected Miscellaneous Petitions closed.

A

W.P.(MD)No.1124 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 24.04.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

W.P.(MD)No.1124 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.758 of 2025

Tvl.A.Sikkander Badhusha, Rep. By its Proprietor, A.Sikkander Badhusha.

... Petitioner

-vs-

State Tax Officer, Tirupathur Assessment Circle, Tirupathur, Sivagangai District. ... Respondent

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned assessment order on the file of respondent vide GSTIN - 33ARPPS6592M4ZP/2018-2019 dated 05.04.2024 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits and direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2018-19.

For Petitioner : Mr.Raja.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.J.K.Jayaselan

Government Advocate

_____________ Page 1 of 4_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

ORDER

W.P.(MD)No.1124 of 2025

This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned assessment order on the file of respondent vide GSTIN - 33ARPPS6592M4ZP/2018-2019 dated 05.04.2024 and also to direct the respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2018-2019.

2 . The petitioner is a dealer with BSNL and the petitioner has been filing returns regularly. However, the respondent passed the assessment order dated 05.04.2024 by fixing liability of Rs.2,36,400/-. The contention of the petitioenr is that even before filing of annual returns, the business of the petitioner was closed and he was also not in a position to follow the assessment webpage. Hence, the petitioner came before this Court seeking the aforesaid relief.

3 . When the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to pay 25% of the demanded amount and hence, the matter may be remitted back to the respondent for a fresh consideration, for which, the learned Government Advocate has not raised any objection at all.

_____________ Page 2 of 4_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.1124 of 2025

4.

4. Considering the submissions made on either side, the impugned order dated 05.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the respondent for fresh consideration. This Court directs the petitioner to pay 25% of the demanded amount within a period of four weeks from today. The respondent is also directed to consider the case of the petitioner afresh and pass appropriate orders, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

5. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be

no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

NCC : Yes / No 24.04.2025 Index : Yes / No (3/4) sm

_____________ Page 3 of 4_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.(MD)No.1124 of 2025

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.

sm

To:-

State Tax Officer, Tirupathur Assessment Circle, Tirupathur, Sivagangai District.

W.P.(MD)No.1124 of 2025 (3/4)

24.04.2025

_____________ Page 4 of 4_

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the impugned assessment order vide GSTIN - 33ARPPS6592M4ZP/2018-2019 dated 05.04.2024 should be set aside/quashed and the respondent directed to redo the assessment proceedings for 2018-2019.¶18
The court held
The impugned assessment order dated 05.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for fresh consideration.ratio¶25

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226¶11

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
GST assessment order vide GSTIN - 33ARPPS6592M4ZP/2018-2019 dated 05.04.2024 fixing liability of Rs.2,36,400/- for the year 2018-2019.¶19
State Tax Officer, Tirupathur Assessment Circle, Tirupathur, Sivagangai District · 05.04.2024
Prior proceeding
The petitioner, a dealer with BSNL, had been filing returns regularly before the assessment order.¶19
Prior proceeding
The petitioner contended that his business was closed even before filing of annual returns and he was not in a position to follow the assessment webpage.¶19
Prior proceeding
At hearing, the petitioner's counsel offered to pay 25% of the demanded amount and sought remission for fresh consideration; the learned Government Advocate raised no objection.¶20

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Tvl.A.Sikkander Badhusha, Rep. By its Proprietor, A.Sikkander Badhusha¶7
Raja.Karthikeyan
respondent
State Tax Officer, Tirupathur Assessment Circle, Tirupathur, Sivagangai District¶10
J.K.Jayaselan

Coram

AI extract

VIVEK KUMAR SINGHauthor¶5

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 24 Apr 2025 · April
Registered: 9 Jan 2025
Case no.: WP(MD)/1124/2025
CNR: HCMD010021102025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Vivek Kumar Singh
Disposal: DISPOSED OF
Case type: W.P.(MD)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Vivek Kumar Singh

A.Rajkumar Vs The Regional Passport Officer
23 Apr 2025
R.M. Valliyammal Vs The Project Manager
23 Apr 2025
Tvl. Ameen Lineman, Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)
23 Apr 2025
M/s. a K Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)
24 Apr 2025
Nithya Vs The Secretary
24 Apr 2025
Mayakrishnan Ganapathy Vs The Regional Passport Officer
24 Apr 2025

Cite this judgement

Tvl a Sikkander Badhusha v. State Tax Officer, WP(MD)/1124/2025 (MAD), decided on 24 April 2025.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticle 226

View all statutes

Procedural history4

GST assessment order vide GSTIN - 33ARPPS6592M4ZP/2018-2019 dated 05.04.2024 fixing liability of Rs.2,36,400/- for the year 2018-2019.State Tax Officer, Tirupathur Assessment Circle, Tirupathur, Sivagangai District · 05.04.2024
The petitioner, a dealer with BSNL, had been filing returns regularly before the assessment order.
The petitioner contended that his business was closed even before filing of annual returns and he was not in a position to follow the assessment webpage.

View full history

Bench / Coram

VIVEK KUMAR SINGH

Parties & counsel