Disposed¶30

Laxshe Chem v. The Deputy State Tax Officer 2

Madras HC22 Jul 2026WP/26533/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; WP No. 26533 of 2026; GST DRC-07 demand order (Ref. ZD331225182319D dt. 12.12.2025) set aside for want of hearing/pre-decisional opportunity; disposal conditional on confirmation of recovery of not less than 25% of total tax demand (petitioner claimed ~56% of CGST and SGST demand recovered); remanded for fresh order within three months; Article 226 certiorari; writ filed after limitation expired; connected W.M.Ps. closed; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Impugned GST DRC-07 order set aside subject to verification and confirmation that not less than 25% of the total tax demand was recovered; matter remanded for re-consideration with a fresh order to be issued within three months of such confirmation after affording a reasonable opportunity; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Laxshe Chem Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer 2 — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 12.12.2025 denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The impugned order dated 12.12.2025 was issued without hearing the petitioner.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Subject to verifying and confirming that not less than 25% of the total tax demand under the impugned order was recovered, the impugned order is set aside so as to provide the petitioner an opportunity to contest the tax proposal on merits, and the matter is remanded for re-consideration.

¶24

Key takeaways

After providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of confirming the recovery.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J.) disposed of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a GST demand order in FORM GST DRC-07 (Order Reference No. ZD331225182319D dated 12.12.2025, GSTIN 33AAGFL5681A1ZL, 2021-22) issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer 2, Hosur (South)-III. Finding on perusal that the impugned order was issued without hearing the petitioner, and noting that the writ petition was filed after the period of limitation expired, the Court set aside the impugned order subject to verification and confirmation that not less than 25% of the total tax demand under the impugned order was recovered (learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that about 56% of the demand relating to CGST and SGST had been recovered, exceeding the 25% threshold), and remanded the matter for re-consideration, directing issuance of a fresh order within three months from the date of confirming the recovery after providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax proposal on merits. Connected writ miscellaneous petitions were closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

WP No. 26533 of 2026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 22-07-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

WP No. 26533 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.29029 & 29030 of 2026

¶7

Laxshe Chem Rep. by its partner Muralikrishna Munirajan, Address-821/B4, Bairamangalam Road, Aggondapalli, Hosur, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu- 635 109

¶8

..Petitioner(s)

¶9

¶10

The Deputy State Tax Officer 2 (Also known as the deputy Commercial Tax Officer) Hosur (South)-III, Krishnagiri, Hosur, Tamil Nadu.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

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 on the files of the learned Respondent herein in GSTIN/ 33AAGFL5681A1ZL/ 202122 in FORM GST DRC-07 in Order Reference No. ZD331225182319D dated 12.12.2025, and quash the same.

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Page1 of 4

¶16

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

¶17

WP No. 26533 of 2026

¶18

ORDER

¶19

An order dated 12.12.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that about 56% of the demand relating to CGST and SGST were recovered and that the recovery exceeds 25% of the total tax demand under the impugned order. This aspect is required to be verified and confirmed. An endorsement to that effect has been made on the bundle.

¶24

Subject to verifying and confirming that not less than 25% of the total tax demand under the impugned order was recovered, the impugned order is set aside so as to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax proposal

¶25

on merits and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a

¶26

Page2 of 4

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 26533 of 2026

¶29

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of confirming the above mentioned recovery.

¶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

22-07-2026

¶32

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

¶33

The Deputy State Tax Officer 2 (Also known as the deputy Commercial Tax Officer) Hosur (South)-III, Krishnagiri, Hosur, Tamil Nadu.

¶34

__________ Page3 of 4

¶35

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

¶36

WP No. 26533 of 2026