Sakthi Constructions Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

Sakthi Constructions Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 30.01.2025 set aside, subject to verification and confirmation that not less than 50% of the total tax demand was recovered, to enable the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits; matter remanded to the respondent for a fresh order within three months from the date of confirming the recovery, after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner; connected writ miscellaneous petitions closed; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned tax demand order dated 30.01.2025 was passed in violation of natural justice, i.e., without a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits. +1 more

Court's answer

On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the order was issued without hearing the petitioner.

Ratio / Principle

Subject to verifying and confirming that not less than 50% 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 demand on merits, and the matter is remanded for reconsideration.

Key takeaways

After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of confirming the above-mentioned recovery.ratio¶33
The Court recorded that the writ petition was filed after the period of limitation had expired, but did not dismiss the petition on that ground; it proceeded to dispose of the petition on terms subject to confirmation of the 50% recovery, leaving the limitation point unadjudicated.obiter¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.), 24-07-2026 - Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash a tax demand order dated 30.01.2025 (Ref. No. ZD3301252829763, FY 2020-21) passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Tindivanam: HELD, on perusal of the impugned order it was evident that it was issued without hearing the petitioner; although the writ petition was filed after the period of limitation expired, the Court, subject to verification and confirmation that not less than 50% of the total tax demand (stated by counsel to be the entire SGST component, with an endorsement on the bundle) was recovered, set aside the impugned order to enable the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits and remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing that a fresh order be issued within three months from the date of confirming the recovery after providing a reasonable opportunity. Writ petition disposed of on the above terms; connected W.M.P.Nos.29782 & 29784 of 2026 closed; no order as to costs.

WP No. 27198 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 24-07-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

WP No. 27198 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.29782 & 29784 of 2026

Sakthi Constructions

Rep by its Partner D.Saravanan No. 5, Subrayapillai Street, Kaveripakkam, Tindivanam 604 001

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Deputy State Tax Officer Tindivanam , Tindivanam Assessment circle, 2nd Floor, Nehru street, Commercial tax office, Tindivanam

The State Tax Officer Review Cell (Intelligence), Cuddalore.

..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 records of the Order

passed by the 1st Respondent dated 30.01.2025 with Ref. No. ZD3301252829763 pertaining to the FY 2020-21 and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.Adithya Reddy For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax) ***********

Page1 of 4

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

WP No. 27198 of 2026

ORDER

An order dated 30.01.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner

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

Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, 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 the entire SGST component was recovered. He also submits that this represent 50% of the total tax demand. This aspect is also required to be verified and confirmed. An endorsement has been made to that effect on the bundle.

Subject to verifying and confirming that not less than 50% 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 demand on merits and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a

__________ Page2 of 4

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

WP No. 27198 of 2026

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within

three months from the date of confirming the above mentioned recovery.

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.

24-07-2026

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

To

The Deputy State Tax Officer Tindivanam , Tindivanam Assessment circle, 2nd Floor, Nehru street, Commercial tax office, Tindivanam

The State Tax Officer Review Cell (Intelligence) ,Cuddalore.

__________ Page3 of 4

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

WP No. 27198 of 2026

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA

WP No. 27198 of 2026 and W.M.P.Nos.29782 & 29784 of 2026

24-07-2026

__________ Page4 of 4

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