Disposed

R.Raguraman v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2

Madras HC17 Jul 2026WP/25875/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

GST assessment order for 2018-19 was challenged on natural justice grounds. The Court set aside the impugned order, directing payment of 10% of the seigniorage-related demand and 25% of the outward supply demand, and remanded for fresh consideration with a hearing, with a fresh order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded for fresh orders after personal opportunity, conditioned on partial pre-deposits (10% seigniorage demand, 25% outward supply demand).

R.Raguraman Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2 — GST and Indirect Tax | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

WP No. 25875 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 17-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 25875 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.28261 & 28263 of 2026

¶7

R.Raguraman No.43, Mohansingh Street, Cuddalore OT,Cuddalore -607003.

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2 O/o.the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, cuddalore (town), cuddalore, tamilnadu - 607003.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India

¶13

praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the Respondent the Impugned order in Temp ID: 332500006649TMP/2018-2019 dated 30.12.2025 along with consequential summary of order u/s 74 in FORM GST DRC 07 bearing with Ref ZD331225453358D dated 30.12.2025 for the period 2018-19, to quash the same.

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

Page1 of 4

¶17

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

¶18

WP No. 25875 of 2026

¶19

ORDER

¶20

An order dated 30.12.2025 is assailed primarily on the ground that

¶21

principles of natural justice were not adhered to.

¶22

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

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the confirmed tax proposals pertain both to imposition of GST seigniorage and outward supply.

¶24

In matters relating to imposition of GST seigniorage, subject to payment of 10% of the demand relating thereto, re-consideration has been directed.

¶25

Therefore, subject to remittance of 10% of the tax demand relating to GST on seigniorage and subject further to the remittance of 25% of the tax demand pertaining to outward supply 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 receipt of a copy of this order. As regards GST on seigniorage, the order shall

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 25875 of 2026

¶29

not be implemented until the Supreme Court pronounces judgment on pending cases relating to said issue. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed to make the above remittances. An endorsement for that purpose has been made on the bundle.

¶30

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.

¶31

17-07-2026

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2 O/o.the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, cuddalore (town), cuddalore, tamilnadu - 607003.

¶35

__________ Page3 of 4

¶36

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

¶37

WP No. 25875 of 2026

¶38

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

¶39

RNA

¶40

WP No. 25875 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.28261 & 28263 of 2026

¶41

17-07-2026

¶42

__________ Page4 of 4

¶43

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

R.Raguraman v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Raguraman v. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer 2

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s.Sivasakthi Agri Maiyam, Vs the Deputy State Tax OFFICER-1

M/s.Tamilnadu Timber Steel And Hardwares (33AAEFT0233A1Z1), Vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

M/s.Star Dental Centre Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

M/s.Hicare Medical Solution Vs The State Tax Officer

Jay Kay Trans Vs Authority for Advance Ruling

Jay Kay Trans Vs Authority for Advance Ruling