logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 MHC 2228 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Judicature at Madras
Case No : W.P. No. 12248 of 2026 & W.M.P. Nos. 13377 & 13379 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
Parties : M/s. Indus Agencies, Rep. by its Partner, J Abdul Khadar Jailani, Salem Versus The State Tax Officer, Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Arisipalayam Circle, Salem
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: R. Hemalatha, Advocate. For the Respondent: V. Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 30-03-2026
Head Note :-
Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Judgment :-

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the impugned proceedings passed by the Respondent in the rectification Order in GSTIN: 33AACF18339N1Z0/2019-20 dated 12.11.2025 along with the Consequential proceeding Summary of rectification of Order vide Form GST-08 with Ref : ZD33112521525208U dated 12.11.2025 for the Period 2019-20 to quash the same.)

1. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice for the respondent.

2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent, this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission.

3. This is the second round of litigation before this Court. Previously, the petitioner suffered an adverse order dated 29.08.2024, which was challenged in a writ petition connected with batch matters in W.P.Nos.17184 of 2024 etc, on the ground of limitation. After the issue was answered by this Court, the case was taken up for fresh adjudication, which has culminated in the impugned order.

4. Pursuant to the remand order, the petitioner filed a reply on 25.08.2025. However, it is noticed that the said reply was not relevant for the Assessment Year 2019-2020 and relevant to the Assessment Years 2021- 2022 and 2022-2023.

5. It is in this background, the demand was confirmed for the impugned tax period 2019-2020.

6. As such, there is no scope for interfering with the impugned order, as no procedural irregularity has been noticed that would warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

7. The impugned order cannot be said to be perverse, as the petitioner failed to file a proper reply to the notice, despite the case having been remitted back by this Court in the earlier round of litigation.

8. The limitation for filing an appeal would have expired on 11.03.2026. The present writ petition has been filed on 17.03.2026.

9. To balance the interest of the parties, I am inclined to give liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority, within a period of 15 days from today.

10. If the petitioner files such an appeal within such time, the Appellate Authority shall dispose of the same on merits after hearing the petitioner, without reference to limitation.

11. This writ petition stands disposed of with the above directions. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.
 
  CDJLawJournal