Kumar Enterprises Vs The Commercial Tax Officer

¶1

WP No. 24509 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 08-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 24509 of 2026 and WMP.No.26717 of 2026

¶7

Kumar Enterprises GSTIN -33AHPPJ3053J1ZA, Represented by its Proprietrix Jayanthi Jabarani Arulkumar, S F No.835/B1B Site No.2,3, Meharaj Nagar, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641 020.

¶8

..Petitioner

¶9

Vs

¶10

The Commercial Tax Officer Periyanaickenpalayam, Coimbatore -II, Coimbatore.

¶11

..Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in Form GST DRC 07 bearing reference no. ZD3301261629568/2021-22 dated 23.01.2026 issued by the Respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner: Mr. G.Derrick Sam For Respondent: Ms. G. Dhana Madhri Government Counsel (Tax)

¶14

Page1 of 4

¶15

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

¶16

WP No. 24509 of 2026

¶17

ORDER

¶18

An order dated 23.01.2026 is assailed in this writ petition on the ground that the petitioner’s reply and documents enclosed with such reply were not taken into consideration.

¶19

Adverting to reply dated 17.02.2025 and the documents enclosed with said reply, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the documents were not taken into consideration while confirming the tax proposal.

¶20

Ms. G. Dhana Madhri, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶21

The petitioner has placed on record reply dated 17.02.2025. Said reply

¶22

makes reference to enclosures such as invoices, e-way bills, weighment slip, lorry trip sheet, party tally ledger account and bank statement. On perusal of the impugned order, it is noticeable that the reply has been extracted. Thereafter, without discussing the evidence provided by the petitioner and recording conclusions in relation thereto, the tax proposal has been confirmed by recording a conclusion that the seller issued fake invoices. Being a completely unreasoned order, this order cannot be sustained and hence, the impugned order

¶23

is set aside. Consequently, the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After

¶24

Page2 of 4

¶25

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

¶26

WP No. 24509 of 2026

¶27

providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶28