M/s.Cloud Interiors Limited Vs The Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2026)

M/s.Cloud Interiors Limited Vs The Assistant… — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 17.03.2026 set aside subject to remittance of 10% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days; matter remanded for reconsideration with a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and a fresh order to be issued within three months of the remittance; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 passed under the CGST Act, 2017 - affirming the tax proposal on the ground that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice or participated in hearings, i.e., in breach of principles of natural justice - should be quashed and the respondent directed to pass a de novo order.

Court's answer

Subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days from receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration; after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of the petitioner making the remittance.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

MADRAS HIGH COURT (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.), WP No. 24379 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.26563 & 26564 of 2026, decided 07-07-2026: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution by M/s. Cloud Interiors Limited seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order dated 17.03.2026 (Ref. No. GSTIN 33AAFCC7877D1ZL/2019-20) passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Porur Assessment Circle under the CGST Act, 2017, and to direct a de novo order. The impugned order had affirmed the tax proposal solely because the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice or participated in hearings, and was assailed primarily for breach of principles of natural justice. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner consented to remit 10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. Subject to such remittance within thirty days, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing that after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner a fresh order be issued within three months of the remittance. Writ petition disposed of on these terms; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

WP No. 24379 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 07-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 24379 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.26563 & 26564 of 2026

M/s.CLOUD INTERIORS LIMITED Rep by its Director/Authorized Signatory Mr. Mugundhan,No.18,19, First Street,Valliammai Nagar, Valasaravakkam - 600087.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Porur Assessment Circle no.4/109, chennai-bangalore highways, nazarathpet, chennai-123.

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the Respondent in the impugned proceedings against the impugned order bearing reference No. GSTIN 33AAFCC7877D1ZL/2019-20 dated 17.03.2026 passed by the Respondent, under the provisions of CGST Act, 2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass DE NOVO order.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Lakshmi Narayanan S

Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 24379 of 2026

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

ORDER

An order dated 17.03.2026 is assailed primarily on the ground of breach

of principles of natural justice.

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

On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal

was affirmed on the ground that the petitioner had not replied to the show cause notice or participated in hearings.

On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner consents to remitting

10% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. He has made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle.

Subject to the petitioner remitting 10% of the disputed tax demand

within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order dated 17.03.2026 is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-

Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 24379 of 2026

consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of petitioner making the remittance of 10% of disputed tax demand.

The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

07-07-2026 (2/2)

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

To

The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Porur Assessment Circle no.4/109, chennai-bangalore highways, nazarathpet, chennai-123.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 24379 of 2026

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA

WP No. 24379 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.26563 & 26564 of 2026

07-07-2026 (2/2)

__________ Page4 of 4

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