Ms Mahaa Pharmacy Vs The State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Ms Mahaa Pharmacy Vs The State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: impugned assessment order set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration, conditional on confirmation of the earlier remittance of at least 10% and additional remittance aggregating not less than 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days; fresh order to be issued within three months of the additional 15% remittance after providing reasonable opportunity; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned assessment order was issued without giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, warranting its being set aside and the matter remanded even though the writ petition was filed after expiry of the period of limitation.

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that it was issued without hearing the petitioner, i.e., without a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

Ratio / Principle

Relief is made conditional on verifying and confirming that at least 10% of the disputed tax demand had already been remitted, and on further remittance so as to remit not less than 25% of the disputed tax demand in the aggregate within thirty days from receipt of a copy of the order.

Key takeaways

Subject to those conditions, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration.ratio¶26
After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of the additional 15% of the disputed tax demand.ratio¶30

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.), by order dated 15-07-2026, disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking certiorari to quash a GST assessment order dated 10.12.2025 for GSTIN 33CLJPK8996D1ZN / 2021-22. Finding from perusal that the order was issued without hearing the petitioner, and noting that the petition was filed after the limitation period had expired, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter, conditional on verifying the earlier remittance of at least 10% of the disputed tax demand and further remittance aggregating not less than 25% within thirty days; a fresh order was directed to be issued within three months of remittance of the additional 15%, after affording a reasonable opportunity. Connected W.M.P.Nos.27796 & 27797 of 2026 were closed with no order as to costs.

WP No. 25494 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 25494 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.27796 & 27797 of 2026

M/s. Mahaa Pharmacy Proprietor M.Kannadasan S/o. Munichamy No.7, Mariamman Koil Street, Nesapakkam, West K.K. Nagar, Chennai 600 078

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The State Tax Officer Ramapuram Assessment Circle, Room No.236 Integrated Commercial Tax Buildings, 2nd Floor, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

..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 pertaining to the Impugned Assessment Order passed by the Respondent in GSTIN. 33CLJPK8996D1ZN / 2021-22 dated 10.12.12025 and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr. C. Sivakumar For Respondent(s): Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, Government Counsel (Tax)

Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 25494 of 2026

ORDER

An order dated 10.12.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner

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

Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, 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 about 10% of the disputed tax demand was remitted after the order was issued. He agrees to remit an additional 15% as a condition for remand. An endorsement to that effect has been made on the bundle.

Subject to verifying and confirming that at least 10% of the disputed tax demand had been remitted earlier and subject further to the remittance of an additional amounts so as to remit not less than 25% of the disputed tax demand

in the aggregate 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-

Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 25494 of 2026

consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of an additional 15% 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.

15-07-2026

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

To

The State Tax Officer Ramapuram Assessment Circle, Room No.236 Integrated Commercial Tax Buildings, 2nd Floor, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 25494 of 2026

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA

WP No. 25494 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.27796 & 27797 of 2026

15-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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