Maaya Marketing Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Maaya Marketing Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 01.12.2025 (Form DRC 07) and order dated 09.02.2026 set aside, subject to the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days; matter remanded for reconsideration with a fresh order to be issued within three months of remittance after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.12.2025 was liable to be set aside 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 was evident that the order was issued without hearing the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

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 the order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

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 25% of the disputed tax demand.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed by Maaya Marketing, represented by its Proprietor Mangilal, challenging an order dated 01.12.2025 bearing reference no. ZD3312250085003 in Form DRC 07 and an order dated 09.02.2026 bearing reference no. ZD330226062472N issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer, RG Street Circle, Coimbatore, in respect of GSTIN 33BKJPM1314B1ZU / 2021-22, on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. The Court found on perusal of the impugned order that it was issued without hearing the petitioner, and noted that the writ petition was filed after the period of limitation expired. On instructions, the petitioner's counsel agreed to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand, with an endorsement to that effect made on the bundle. Subject to remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, the impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for reconsideration, with a direction that a fresh order be issued within three months from the date of remittance after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of on these terms, connected writ miscellaneous petitions (W.M.P.Nos. 27474, 27476, 27478 and 27479 of 2026) were closed, and there was no order as to costs.

WP No. 25200 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 25200 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.27474, 27476, 27478 & 27479 of 2026

Maaya Marketing Represented by its Proprietor Mangilal No. 564, Thomas Street, Coimbatore - 641 001

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Deputy State Tax Officer RG Street Circle, Coimbatore-641 018

..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 relating to the order dated 01.12.2025 bearing reference no. ZD3312250085003 in Form DRC 07 and order dated 09.02.2026 bearing reference no. ZD330226062472N issued by the Respondent in respect of GSTIN 33BKJPM1314B1ZU / 2021-22, and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to material facts and in violation of the principles of natural justice.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.Raghunandan Sriram

Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 25200 of 2026

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

ORDER

An order dated 01.12.2025 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, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 25200 of 2026

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.

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.

13-07-2026

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

To

The Deputy State Tax Officer RG Street Circle, Coimbatore-641 018

Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 25200 of 2026

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA

WP No. 25200 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.27474, 27476, 27478 & 27479 of 2026

13-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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