Dismissed¶28

Bld Design Studio v. Union of India

Madras HC7 Apr 2026WA/815/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal No. 815 of 2026, Madras High Court, decision 07-04-2026; consent order not challengeable; conditional deposit of 25% disputed tax upheld on remand for fresh assessment; natural justice plea; notice dated 31.03.2023 and assessment order dated 31.12.2023; challenge to notification pending before Supreme Court; time to deposit extended to 05.05.2026; Clause 15 Letters Patent; BLD Design Studio v. Union of India & Ors.; appeal dismissed, CMP closed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal dismissed; time to deposit 25% of the tax demanded extended upto 05.05.2026; connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.No. 8600 of 2026) closed; no costs. ¶28

Bld Design Studio Vs Union of India — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Appeal dismissed; time to deposit 25% of the tax demanded extended upto 05.05.2026; connected Miscellaneous Petition (C.M.P.No. 8600 of 2026) closed; no costs.

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether, where the Court holds an impugned notification bad in law and quashes it, a condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax can nonetheless be imposed when remanding the matter for fresh consideration (ground urged by the appellant). +1 more

¶24

Court's answer

The Division Bench was not convinced by the appellant's grounds for challenging the Single Judge's conditional remand order, because that conditional order was passed by consent.

¶27

Ratio / Principle

With the challenge to the notification pending before the Supreme Court, the assessee cannot withhold payment of the demanded tax; the conditional deposit order preserves the right of the exchequer as well as the assessee, and the Single Judge had already preserved the appellant's right to agitate its case.

¶28

Key takeaways

An order passed by consent cannot be challenged; consequently the Writ Appeal is dismissed.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Division Bench) dismissed a writ appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent challenging the learned Single Judge's order dated 10-06-2025 in W.P.No. 20514 of 2025, which had remanded the matter to the State Tax Officer for fresh consideration while directing the appellant to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. The Bench declined the appellant's contention that once a notification is held bad in law and quashed no deposit condition can be imposed, reasoning that the conditional order was passed by consent and that an order passed by consent cannot be challenged; further, since the challenge to the notification was pending before the Supreme Court, the assessee could not withhold the demanded tax, the condition balancing the rights of the exchequer and the assessee. Time to deposit 25% of the tax demanded was extended upto 05.05.2026; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed with no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 07-04-2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN AND

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED

¶6

Writ Appeal No. 815 of 2026 and C.M.P.No. 8600 of 2026

¶7

BLD Design Studio Rep. by its Partner T.Ramesh, No. 21/4, 77/4, 31st Cross Street, Besant Nagar, Kamaraj Nagar, Chennai-90.

¶8

..Appellant

¶9

¶10

Union of India

¶11

Rep. by the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi-01.

¶12

The Director, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs, 1st Floor Tower NBCC Plaza-1Sector 5, Pushp Vihar, New Delhi-17.

¶13

The State Tax officer Kotturpuram Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Department, Nandanam, Chennai-35.

¶14

..Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the

¶16

Page1 of 5

¶17

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

¶18

order dated 10-6-2025 made in W.P.No. 20514 of 2025 and allow the prayer made in the said Writ Petition and thus render justice.

¶19

For Appellant: MR.K.Jayachandran For Respondents: M/s.Sai Srujan Tayi Senior Standing Counsel and M/s.Pooja jain Junior Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 & 2 Mr.C.Harsha Raj Special Government Pleader for 3^rd Respondent

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.)

¶22

This Intra-Court Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶23

2. The appellant, in the writ petition, raised a plea regarding the violation of principles of natural justice and sought to quash the impugned notice dated 31.03.2023 issued by the 2^nd respondent and the assessment order dated 31.12.2023. The learned Single Judge remanded the matter back to the 3^rd respondent for fresh consideration, granting liberty to the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶24

3. The said order is challenged on the grounds that once the Court holds that an impugned notification is bad in law and quashes it, a condition to

¶25

Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

deposit 25% of the tax cannot be imposed. Though the learned counsel for the appellant cited a judgment of this Court, we are not convinced by the grounds raised for the simple reason that the conditional order was passed by the learned Single Judge by consent.

¶28

4. Since the challenge to the notification is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the assessee cannot keep quite without paying the demanded tax. The learned Single Judge has already provided the appellant every right to agitate their case. While so, the conditional order is to preserve the right of the exchequer as well as the assessee. Furthermore, an order passed by consent cannot be challenged. Hence, this Writ Appeal stands dismissed. Time to deposit 25% of the tax demanded is granted upto 05.05.2026. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶29

(G.J.,J.) (S.S.A.,J.) 07-04-2026

¶30

Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

¶31

rpl

¶32

¶33