Remanded

Gayathiri Construction v. Assistant Commissioner

Madras HC8 Apr 2026WP/13266/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On consent of parties, the High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a GST order. Instead of dismissal, the Court remitted the case to the authority for fresh adjudication on merits, conditioned on the petitioner's pre-deposit of 10% tax and filing a reply, mandating speedy disposal.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner remitted to Respondent to pass fresh order on merits; attachment of bank account automatically vacated upon pre-deposit of 10% disputed tax and filing of reply within 30 days.

Gayathiri Construction Vs Assistant Commissioner — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 08.04.2026

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.13266 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.14515 & 14518 of 2026

¶6

Gayathiri Construction, Represented by its Partner, T. Selvi 1, Market Lane 3rd Floor, Chennai, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu - 600 019.

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

¶9

Assistant Commissioner, Thiruvottiyur, Avadi, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu.

¶10

..Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of Order of Assessment in DRC-07 bearing Reference: ZD331225330778B in GSTIN/ID: 33AAHFG5993R1ZJ / APR 2021 - MAR 2022 dated 22.12.2025 passed by the respondent and to quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Ms.Shivani .P For Respondent : Mrs.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Advocate.

¶13

ORDER

¶14

Mrs.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes

¶15

notice for the Respondent.

¶16

Page1 of 6

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the Respondent.

¶20

In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the impugned Order

¶21

dated 22.12.2025, which was preceded by a Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 26.09.2025 wherein the Petitioner was called upon to appear for personal hearing. However, the Petitioner had not taken advantage of the same and thus, suffered the impugned Order dated 22.12.2025.

¶22

The Petitioner was also issued with Reminders on 07.11.2025, 02.12.2025 and 18.12.2025, which called upon the Petitioner to file a reply and to appear for a personal hearing. The Petitioner however neither filed any reply nor appeared for the personal hearing fixed on 12.11.2025, 05.12.2025 and 19.12.2025. Thus, the impugned Order has been passed.

¶23

It is noticed that the limitation for filing an appeal under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, 2017 against the impugned Order has already expired. The present Writ Petition has been filed only on 16.03.2026.

¶24

Page2 of 6

¶25

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

¶26

At this stage, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

¶27

Petitioner is willing to pre-deposit 10% of the disputed tax as a condition for denovo adjudication.

¶28

The learned counsel for the Petitioner has also made an following

¶29

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

¶30

“Petitioner agree to pay 10%”

¶31

Recording the above submission, the case is remitted back to the Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% 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.

¶32

Within such time, the Petitioner shall also file a reply to the Show Cause Notice in GST DRC-01 dated 26.09.2025 together with requisite documents to substantiate the case by treating the impugned Order dated 22.12.2025 as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice dated 26.09.2025.

¶33

In case the Petitioner complies with the above stipulations, the Respondent shall proceed to pass a final order on merits and in accordance with

¶34

Page3 of 6

¶35

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

¶36

law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three (3) months of such reply/pre-deposit. Subject to the Petitioner complying with the above stipulations, the attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner if any, shall also stand automatically vacated.

¶37

It is made clear that bank attachment shall be lifted subject to the Petitioner depositing 10% of the disputed tax as ordered above and the Petitioner not being in arrears of any other amount for any other tax period barring the amount demanded under the impugned Order.

¶38

In case the Petitioner fails to comply with any of the stipulations, the Respondent is at liberty to proceed against the Petitioner to recover the tax in accordance with law as if this Writ Petition was dismissed in limine today.

¶39

Needless to state, before passing any such order, the Respondent shall give due notice to the Petitioner.

¶40

This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observations.

¶41

No costs. Connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶42

08.04.2026

¶43

Neutral Citation: Yes/No kmm

¶44

Page4 of 6

¶45

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

¶46

¶47

Assistant Commissioner, Thiruvottiyur, Avadi, Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu.

¶48

__________ Page5 of 6

¶49

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

¶50

C.SARAVANAN, J.

¶51

kmm

¶52

W.P.No.13266 of 2026

¶53

08.04.2026

¶54

__________ Page6 of 6

¶55

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

Gayathiri Construction v. Assistant Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gayathiri Construction v. Assistant Commissioner

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

M/S. Indian Entrance Automation Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s. Rajkumar Muthusamy Vs Additional Director of Dggi

Tvl Selvi Oil Stores Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Tvl. v K Tex Vs The State of Tamil Nadu

Gayathri Constructions Vs The Assistant Commissioner(St)(Fac)

Tvl Balaganesh Mart Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer