Sidharth Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Sidharth Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner (St) — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of on the above terms: impugned order set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration, conditioned on remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days; fresh order to follow within three months of remittance after a reasonable opportunity; any bank-account attachment relating to the impugned order to stand raised on fulfilment of the condition; connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 06.11.2025 and the consequential demand order dated 06.11.2025, assailed on the ground of alleged breach of principles of natural justice, should be quashed.

Court's answer

Subject to the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, 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 reconsideration.

Ratio / Principle

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.

Key takeaways

Subject to fulfilment of the condition of remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand, any attachment of the petitioner's bank account in relation to the impugned order shall stand raised.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.), WP No. 26203 of 2026 (with WMP Nos. 28599 and 28601 of 2026), decided 20-07-2026: Sidharth Enterprises, by writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenged an order dated 06.11.2025 (GSTIN 33AIMPM7092G1ZZ, FY 2021-2022) and the consequential Demand Order dated 06.11.2025 (Ref. No. ZD3311250918939) issued by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), J.J. Nagar Assessment Circle, on the ground of alleged breach of principles of natural justice; the period of limitation for appeal had expired. 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 fresh order to be issued within three months of remittance after a reasonable opportunity; any bank-account attachment relating to the impugned order stands raised on fulfilment of the condition. Connected miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

WP No. 26203 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 20-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 26203 of 2026 and WMP Nos.28599 and 28601 of 2026

Sidharth Enterprises Rep. by its Proprietor Bhasker Masilamani, L.I.G. 596, 15^th Cross Street, Mugappair Eri Scheme, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600037.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

Assistant Commissioner (ST) J.J.Nagar Assesment circle, 1, PAPJM Annex Building, 2nd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in GSTIN 33AIMPM7092G1ZZ FY 2021-2022 dated 06.11.2025 passed by the Respondent and its consequential Demand Order dated 06.11.2025 having Reference No. ZD3311250918939 issued by the Respondent and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Deepak Kumara A.D For Respondent(s): Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran Government Counsel (Tax)

__________ Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 26203 of 2026

ORDER

An order dated 06.11.2025 and the consequential demand order dated 06.11.2025 are assailed in this writ petition on the ground of alleged breach of principles of natural justice.

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

The period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. An endorsement to that effect is made on the bundle.

Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, 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 reconsideration. 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. Subject to fulfilment of the above condition, the

attachment, if any, of the bank account of the petitioner in relation to the impugned order shall stand raised.

__________ Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 26203 of 2026

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

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

20-07-2026

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

To

Assistant Commissioner (ST) J.J.Nagar Assesment Circle, 1, PAPJM Annex Building, 2nd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai - 600006.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 26203 of 2026

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

KAS

WP No. 26203 of 2026

20-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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