M/s.Udhayam Agencies Vs The Assistant Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

M/s.Udhayam Agencies Vs The Assistant Commissioner… — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of on agreed terms: impugned order dated 12.02.2025 set aside insofar as the confirmed tax proposals are concerned, subject to remittance of not less than 50% of the disputed tax demand pertaining to confirmed proposals (after adjusting earlier recoveries, which are to be verified and confirmed) within six weeks; matter remanded for re-consideration with a fresh order to be issued within three months of remittance after affording a reasonable opportunity; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 12.02.2025 (Form GST DRC 07, Ref No. ZD330225102951U, for the year 2020-21) was liable to be quashed on the ground that no personal hearing was offered after the petitioner replied to the show cause notice. +1 more

Court's answer

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

Ratio / Principle

Subject to remittance of additional amounts so as to remit not less than 50% of the disputed tax demand pertaining to the confirmed proposals in the aggregate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, the impugned order is set aside insofar as the confirmed tax proposals are concerned, and the matter is remanded for re-consideration on those issues.

Key takeaways

After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 50% of the disputed tax demand in the aggregate.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

W.P. No. 23884 of 2026 (M/s. Udhayam Agencies v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Namakkal (town)) — Order in Form GST DRC 07 (Ref No. ZD330225102951U) with detailed order, both dated 12.02.2025, for the year 2020-21, assailed under Article 226 principally on the ground that no personal hearing was offered after the petitioner replied to the show cause notice. Held (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.): on perusal of the impugned order, it was evident that the order was issued without hearing the petitioner. Disposed of on agreed terms: impugned order set aside insofar as confirmed tax proposals, subject to remittance of not less than 50% of the disputed tax demand pertaining to confirmed proposals within six weeks, earlier recoveries to be verified and confirmed; matter remanded for re-consideration with a fresh order within three months of remittance after reasonable opportunity. Expiry of the limitation period for filing the petition noted by the Court. Connected W.M.P.Nos.25929 & 25930 of 2026 closed; no order as to costs.

WP No. 23884 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 23884 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.25929 & 25930 of 2026

M/s.Udhayam Agencies Represented by its proprietor Mr. S Ananthan 147,A, Karunkattu Palanisamy StreetA.S Pettai, Namakkal - 637001

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Namakkal (town), namakkal.

..Respondent(s)

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 vide Ref No. ZD330225102951U, along with its detailed order both dated 12.02.2025, for the year 2020-21, quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.K.A. Parthasarathy

For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax)

Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 23884 of 2026

ORDER

Order dated 12.02.2025 is assailed primarily on the ground that no

personal hearing was offered after the petitioner replied to the show cause notice.

Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, 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.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a personal hearing was not offered. He also submits that some recoveries were made. This aspect has to be verified and confirmed. Without prejudice, he submits that the petitioner agrees to remit 50% of the disputed tax demand pertaining to confirmed proposals after adjusting recoveries made earlier. He has made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle.

Subject to remittance of additional amounts so as to remit not less than 50% of the disputed tax demand pertaining to the confirmed proposals in the

Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 23884 of 2026

aggregate within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside insofar as the confirmed tax proposals are concerned, and the matter is remanded for re-consideration on those issues. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 50% of the disputed tax demand in the aggregate.

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

03-07-2026 (5/6)

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

To

The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Namakkal (town), namakkal.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 23884 of 2026

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA

WP No. 23884 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.25929 & 25930 of 2026

03-07-2026 (5/6)

__________ Page4 of 4

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