Disposed¶29

Tvl. Jamunaa Wholesale Departmental Store v. Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Madras HC2 Jul 2026WP/23715/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court writ petition under Article 226; Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.12.2025 (Ref. ZD331225260813K; GSTIN 33ADIPP1461F2ZR / 2021-2022) set aside for lack of hearing; remand conditioned on remittance of 25% of disputed tax demand within thirty days; fresh order within three months of remittance; writ petition filed after limitation expired; connected W.M.P.s closed; no costs; decided 02-07-2026.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order (Form GST DRC-07 dated 16.12.2025) set aside subject to remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days; matter remanded for re-consideration with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, fresh order to be issued within three months from the date of remittance; connected W.M.P.Nos.25696 & 25697 of 2026 closed; no order as to costs. ¶29

Tvl. Jamunaa Wholesale Departmental Store Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 16.12.2025 (Form GST DRC-07) should be interfered with on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

¶21

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, the court found that it was issued without hearing the petitioner.

¶23

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 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.

¶25

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms; consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed and there is no order as to costs.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.) disposed of W.P. No. 23715 of 2026 challenging a Form GST DRC-07 order dated 16.12.2025 (Reference No ZD331225260813K, GSTIN 33ADIPP1461F2ZR / 2021-2022) issued by the Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac), Salem Town West Assessment Circle, Salem, on the ground that the petitioner lacked a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand. Finding on perusal that the order was issued without hearing the petitioner, and noting the writ petition was filed after expiry of limitation, the court set aside the impugned order subject to the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, and remanded the matter for a fresh order after providing a reasonable opportunity, to be issued within three months of the remittance. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

WP No. 23715 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 02-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 23715 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.25696 & 25697 of 2026

¶7

Tvl. JAMUNAA WHOLESALE DEPARTMENTAL STORE (Represent by its Proprietor Mr. Balavenkatraman Pandurangan) No. 357, Chairman Ramalingam Street, Salem- 636001

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

Assistant Commissioner (st) (fac) Salem Town West Assessment Circle, Salem.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in FORM GST DRC-07 with Reference. No ZD331225260813K dated 16.12.2025 in connection with GSTIN

¶13

33ADIPP1461F2ZR/ 2021-2022 dated 16.12.2025 and quash the same.

¶14

For Petitioner(s): Mr.N Chandirasekar For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax)

¶15

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 23715 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

An order dated 16.12.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner

¶21

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

¶22

Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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, 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.

¶26

__________ Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 23715 of 2026

¶29