Tvl. Rk Technology Vs The Deputy State tax officer II — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Tvl. Rk Technology Vs The Deputy State tax officer II — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of on agreed terms: impugned order dated 15.11.2025 set aside and matter remanded, subject to remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days; fresh order to be issued within three months of remittance after reasonable opportunity; bank attachment to stand raised subject to fulfilment of the condition; connected writ miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 15.11.2025 in GSTIN 33ABJPU5028L1ZA /2021-22 and the consequential Form-DRC-07 order dated 15.11.2025 were liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. +1 more

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the order was issued without hearing the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Subject to the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

Key takeaways

The writ petition was filed after the period of limitation had expired; this was noted by the Court but did not lead to dismissal, the matter being disposed of on the agreed remand terms.obiter¶22
After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand.ratio¶30
Subject to fulfilment of the remittance condition, the bank attachment shall stand raised.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.), WP No. 23678 of 2026, decided 02-07-2026: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 15.11.2025 in GSTIN 33ABJPU5028L1ZA /2021-22 passed by the Deputy State tax officer and the consequential Form-DRC-07 order dated 15.11.2025 (Reference No. ZD3311252689752) passed by the Deputy Commercial tax officer, with a prayer to de-freeze the petitioner's Canara Bank account. The Court found on perusal that the impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioner, and noted that the writ petition was filed after the period of limitation expired. On the petitioner's counsel agreeing to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand, the Court set aside the impugned order subject to remittance within thirty days, remanded the matter for a fresh order to be issued within three months of remittance after providing a reasonable opportunity, and directed that the bank attachment stand raised subject to fulfilment of the condition. Writ petition disposed of; connected W.M.P. closed; no order as to costs.

WP No. 23678 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 02-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 23678 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.25643 of 2026

Tvl. RK Technology (GSTIN- 33ABJPU5028L1ZA), rep by proprietor Subramani Umadevi , Office at Ground floor Y-109, North of Perur, Kumarapalayam village Perur, Coimbatore 641010

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Deputy State tax officer 2 Perur circle, coimbatore

The Deputy Commercial tax officer Perur Coimbatore I

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, call for the records pertaining to the order dated 15.11.2025 in GSTIN 33ABJPU5028L1ZA /2021-22 passed by 1st respondent, and the consequential Order dated 15.11.2025 in Reference No. ZD3311252689752 (Form-DRC -07) passed by the 2nd respondent, and quash the same, and consequentially direct the respondents to de-freeze the bank account bearing Account No. 65723070000476, Canara Bank, Perur Branch.

__________ Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 23678 of 2026

For Petitioner(s):	Mr.K Sathish Kumar
For Respondent(s):	Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, Government Counsel (Tax)
	********

ORDER

An order dated 15.11.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner

did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed after the period of limitation expired.

On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 25%

of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. An endorsement to that effect has been made on the bundle.

Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed

tax demand within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,

Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 23678 of 2026

the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand. Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the bank attachment shall stand raised.

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

02-07-2026

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

To

The Deputy State tax officer 2 Perur circle, coimbatore

The Deputy Commercial tax officer Perur Coimbatore I

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 23678 of 2026

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA

WP No. 23678 of 2026 and W.M.P.No.25643 of 2026

02-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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