VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Madras High Court 2026 › High Court of Madras

Mak Auto Services, v. Deputy State Tax Officer 1,

DISPOSED OF
Court
High Court of Madras
Decided
5 June 2026
Bench
Senthilkumar Ramamoorthyauthor
Case no.
WP 18738/2026

Follow Madras High CourtFollow Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Judgment

ORDER An order dated 13.01.2025 is impugned primarily on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice.

¶2Mr.L.Gokulraj, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of respondents 1 to 3.

¶3On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the tax proposal was confirmed because the petitioner did not file any written objection or attend the personal hearing. In view of the assertion that the petitioner could not participate in proceedings on account of not being aware of the same, the interest of justice warrants reconsideration subject to putting the petitioner on terms. Page3 of 5

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that more than 25% of the tax dues were recovered. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand under the impugned order, if not recovered earlier, as a condition for remand. He has also made an endorsement to that effect on the bundle.

¶5Subject to the remittance of 25% of the disputed tax demand, as agreed to, after verifying and giving credit to the amount, if any, recovered earlier, 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 the petitioner complying with the conditional order. In view of the impugned order being set aside, the attachment, if any, of the bank account of the petitioner in the second respondent bank shall stand raised.

¶6The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

05.06.2026 Index: Yes/No mmi Page4 of 5

¶1The Deputy State Tax Officer 1, Ramapuram Assessment Circle, No.46,Mylapore Taluk Office Building, 2nd Floor, Greenways Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 28.

¶2The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Office of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,Jurisdiction. Ramapuram.South II, Chennai South,TamilNadu, No.46, Mylapore Taluk Office Building, 2nd Floor, Greenways Road, Mandaveli, Chennai-28.

¶3The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ramapuram Assessment Circle, 2nd Floor, Room No.235, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.

¶4The Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, New No.22/2, Potters Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. WPoNo.o18738oofo2026 SENTHILKUMAR(RAMAMOORTHY,(J. mmi WP(No.(18738(of(2026

05.06.2026 Page5oofo5

Case details

Parties and counsel

Page1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 05.06.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and W.M.P. No.20010 of 2026 Mak Auto Services, Represented by its Proprietor Mr.Ibunu Swoothu Ahmed Safiullah, No.7, Puthapedu Salai, N.S.C. Bose Nagar, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 116 ..Petitioner Vs 1. Deputy State Tax Officer 1, Ramapuram Assessment Circle, No.46,Mylapore Taluk Office Building, 2nd Floor, Greenways Road, Mandaveli, Chennai 28. 2. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Office of Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,Jurisdiction.Ramapuram South II, Chennai South,TamilNadu, No.46, Mylapore Taluk Office Building, 2nd floor, Greenways Road, Mandaveli, Chennai- 28 3. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Ramapuram Assessment Circle, 2nd Floor, Room No.235, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai- 600 035. 4. The Manager, Karur Vysya Bank, New No.22/2, Potters Street, Saidapet, Chennai 600 015. ..Respondents Page2 of 5 Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the Proceedings dated 09.01.2025 and subsequent Order dated 13.01.2025 bearing Reference No ZD330125114987D passed by the 3rd Respondent and quash the same and further direct the Respondents to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity to personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act. For Petitioner: Mr.Prajoy J For Respondents: Mr.L.Gokulraj, Govt. Counsel (Tax) for R1 to R3

Source: High Court of Madras, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.