SREE HARI ENTERPRISES SURESH T, MONISHA .S vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER FAC — WP/19711/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 10th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010913902026

e-Filing Number

15-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/67616/2026

Filing Date

15-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19711/2026

Registration Date

14-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

10-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 11-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SREE HARI ENTERPRISES SURESH T, MONISHA .S

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE STATE TAX OFFICER FAC

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    Summary of WP No. 19711/2026 The Madras High Court set aside a GST tax demand order dated 25.11.2025 issued by the State Tax Officer against Sree Hari Enterprises, finding it was passed without hearing the petitioner. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, after which the tax officer must provide reasonable opportunity to contest and issue a fresh order within three months. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19711/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WP No. 19711/2026 The Madras High Court set aside a GST tax demand order dated 25.11.2025 issued by the State Tax Officer against Sree Hari Enterprises, finding it was passed without hearing the petitioner. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, after which the tax officer must provide reasonable opportunity to contest 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