Allowed

M/s.Taha Enterprises v. The Superintendent of Cgst and Central Excise

Madras HC25 Mar 2026WP/11450/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an order confirming a proposal under GST due to violation of natural justice. The writ was allowed subject to the petitioner's consent to pre-deposit 25% of disputed tax, with the matter remitted for fresh adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Writ of Certiorari allowed; matter remitted to respondents to pass fresh order on merits subject to pre-deposit of 25% tax.

M/s.Taha Enterprises Vs The Superintendent of Cgst… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 11450 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶6

WP No. 11450 of 2026 and WMP Nos.12478 & 12479 of 2026

¶7

M/s.TAHA ENTERPRISES

¶8

Rep. by its Proprietor M.Tanveer Ahmed, No.20/16, Covelong Muthu Street, Chennai-600 003

¶9

..Petitioner(s)

¶10

¶11

The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise

¶12

Range-V, Parrys Division, Chennai North Commissionerate, 1st Floor Newry Towers, No.2054-I, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040

¶13

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Vepery Assessment Circle, No.A-110, First Floor, CT Annex Building, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006

¶14

..Respondent(s)

¶15

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent in his proceedings in Original-in-Original No.109/2024, quash the order dated 31.12.2024 passed therein

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.P.V.Sudakar

¶17

For Respondent(s): Mr.Su.Srinivasan Senior Standing Counsel for R1 Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate

¶18

__________ Page1 of 6

¶19

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

¶20

WP No. 11450 of 2026

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Mr.Su.Srinivasan, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the 1^st

¶23

Respondent.

¶24

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate takes notice for

¶25

the 2^nd Respondent.

¶26

This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself

¶27

with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the 1^st Respondent, and the learned Government Advocate for the 2^nd Respondent.

¶28

The Petitioner is before this Court challenging the impugned order in Original Number 109/2024 dated 31.12.2024, whereby the proposal in Show

¶29

Cause Notice No.458/2024-25 dated 01.08.2024 has been confirmed.

¶30

Page2 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 11450 of 2026

¶33

The specific case of the Petitioner is that the impugned order was

¶34

passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Despite the Petitioner filing a reply on 14.08.2024 which was duly acknowledged in Form GST DRC-06 the impugned order erroneously recorded that the Petitioner failed to file a reply or appear in person for the hearing.

¶35

Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned counsels for the Respondents and having perused the impugned order, it is evident that personal hearing notices dated 18.11.2024, 04.12.2024 and 11.12.2024 (fixing the dates as 28.11.2024, 10.12.2024 and 16.12.2024) remained unserved. These notices were returned with postal remarks stating “No Such Person”.

¶36

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Petitioner filed a reply, as evidenced by from Form DRC 06 dated 14.08.2024. Consequently, there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice.

¶37

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication and he has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle.

¶38

__________ Page3 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

WP No. 11450 of 2026

¶41

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made the following

¶42

endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle which has been extracted

¶43

hereunder:-

¶44

“The petitioner consents to deposit 25% of the amount

¶45

for remand and final disposal.”

¶46

Recording the above consent given by the Petitioner, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax in cash or from the Petitioner's Electronic Cash Register within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶47

Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 01.08.2024 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 31.12.2024 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 01.08.2024.

¶48

In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the 1^st Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order in view of the impugned order in Original No.109/2024 dated 31.12.2024 on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit.

¶49

Page4 of 6

¶50

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

¶51

WP No. 11450 of 2026

¶52

In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the

¶53

Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in

¶54

accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.

¶55

Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall

¶56

give due notice to the Petitioner.

¶57

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations. No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶58

25-03-2026

¶59

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

¶60

¶61

The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise Range-V, Parrys Division, Chennai North Commissionerate, 1st Floor Newry Towers, No.2054-I, II Avenue, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040

¶62

The Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac) Vepery Assessment Circle, No.A-110, First Floor, Ct Annex Building, Greams Road, Chennai-600 006

¶63

__________ Page5 of 6

¶64

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

WP No. 11450 of 2026

C.SARAVANAN, J.

GBI

WP No. 11450 of 2026 and WMP Nos.12478 & 12479 of 2026

¶69

25-03-2026

¶70

__________ Page6 of 6

¶71

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

M/s.Taha Enterprises v. The Superintendent of Cgst and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Taha Enterprises v. The Superintendent of Cgst and Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl Arumugam Kesavan Vs State Tax officer

Sugunapuram Palanisamy Velumani Vs The Assistant commissioner of Income Tax

Sadaiyan Karunanidhi Vs Commercial Tax Officer

K.Goutham, Vs Assistant Commissioner (St)(Fac)

A G Shijo Vs The State Tax Officer

Vapu Mohamedbilal Vs The Commercial Tax Officer