Rajendran Subbarayan vs The Deputy Commissioner CT — WP/19056/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 08th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010746842026

e-Filing Number

25-03-2026

Filing Number

WP/55136/2026

Filing Date

25-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/19056/2026

Registration Date

08-May-2026

Judge

Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Coram

Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

Tax/Tolls ( 150 )

Judicial Branch

WRITSECTION

Decision Date

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Rajendran Subbarayan

    Adv. S.Gunaseelan,A.Sanjay,A.Sanjay, Sujatha Gunaseelan,N.Maruthachalamoorthy,G.Lokeshwaran,G.Shakthipriya,R.Sivasankari,R.Tamizharasan,A.Sanjay

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Deputy Commissioner CT

  2. 2.Commercial Tax Officer

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    The Madras High Court set aside a tax order issued without hearing the petitioner and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The court imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to remit an additional 15% of the disputed tax demand (beyond the 10% already paid) within 30 days, after which the tax authorities must provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits and issue a fresh order within three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

  4. 25-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19056/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court set aside a tax order issued without hearing the petitioner and remanded the matter for reconsideration. The court imposed a condition requiring the petitioner to remit an additional 15% of the disputed tax demand (beyond the 10% already paid) within 30 days, after which the tax authorities must provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to contest the tax demand on merits and issue a fresh order within three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case