MS S G Steel Industries K. Jayachandran, J. Anand,M.A. Mudimannan vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) — WP/19202/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010766272026

e-Filing Number

27-03-2026

Filing Number

WP/56541/2026

Filing Date

27-Mar-2026

Registration No

WP/19202/2026

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.MS S G Steel Industries K. Jayachandran, J. Anand,M.A. Mudimannan

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: WP 19202/2026 S G Steel Industries challenged a May 9, 2022 GST order from the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) Hosur, alleging breach of natural justice principles. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded it for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remits 100% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days. The respondent authority must then provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months of tax remittance. 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. 27-Mar-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19202/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: WP 19202/2026 S G Steel Industries challenged a May 9, 2022 GST order from the Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC) Hosur, alleging breach of natural justice principles. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded it for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remits 100% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days. The respondent authority must then provide reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months of tax remittance. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case