M/s. Ssg Enterprises, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

M/s. Ssg Enterprises, Vs The Commercial Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of on agreed terms: impugned order No. ZD330625239072M dated 23.06.2025 set aside and matter remanded to the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruppur, subject to the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days; fresh order to be issued within three months of such remittance after providing a reasonable opportunity of hearing; connected W.M.P.Nos.27909 & 27913 of 2026 closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 23.06.2025 was liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits (denial of personal hearing), notwithstanding that the writ petition was filed after expiry of limitation.

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 23.06.2025 was issued without hearing the petitioner, i.e., without a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded for re-consideration, conditional upon the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days of receipt of a copy of the order (as agreed by petitioner's counsel on instructions, with an endorsement made on the bundle).

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¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.), W.P. No. 25575 of 2026 with W.M.P.Nos.27909 & 27913 of 2026 (decided 15-07-2026): Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash order No. ZD330625239072M dated 23.06.2025 of the Commercial Tax Officer, Tiruppur, on the ground that the petitioner (M/s. SSG Enterprises) lacked a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits; the petition itself was filed after expiry of limitation. Perusing the impugned record, the Court found the order was issued without hearing the petitioner. With petitioner's counsel agreeing on instructions to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition (endorsement noted on the bundle), the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter: subject to remittance of the 25% within thirty days, the respondent is to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months of the remittance. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no costs. No precedent was cited and no rupee quantum is disclosed.

WP No. 25575 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 25575 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.27909 & 27913 of 2026

M/s. SSG Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietor Thiru Dhanasekar S.F.No.73-3B, Sivanandha Nagar, Dharapuram Road, K.Chettipalayam, Tiruppur, Tamil nadu-641 608

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Commercial Tax Officer Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu.

..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 in impugned order No. ZD330625239072M dated 23.06.2025 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to provide the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and pass fresh orders on merits in accordance with law.

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

__________ Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 25575 of 2026

ORDER

An order dated 23.06.2025 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. 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.

Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 25575 of 2026

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 Commercial Tax Officer Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 25575 of 2026

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA

WP No. 25575 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.27909 & 27913 of 2026

15-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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