Bhairav Impex Rep by its Proprietrix Mrs Pinky Shantilal C REKHAKUMARI, DARSHITA R,R.Nandakumar,D.Praveen Kumar Jain vs The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise, — WP/19028/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010930552026

e-Filing Number

15-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/68884/2026

Filing Date

15-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19028/2026

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.Bhairav Impex Rep by its Proprietrix Mrs Pinky Shantilal C REKHAKUMARI, DARSHITA R,R.Nandakumar,D.Praveen Kumar Jain

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Superintendent of CGST and Central Excise,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    Case Summary: Bhairav Impex v. Superintendent of CGST The Madras High Court set aside a CGST tax demand order dated 28.08.2024 because it was issued without hearing the petitioner, violating natural justice principles. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration with a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to contest the demand, conditioned on the petitioner remitting 50% of the disputed tax within 30 days and requiring the authority to 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. 15-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19028/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: Bhairav Impex v. Superintendent of CGST The Madras High Court set aside a CGST tax demand order dated 28.08.2024 because it was issued without hearing the petitioner, violating natural justice principles. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration with a fresh opportunity for the petitioner to contest the demand, conditioned on the petitioner remitting 50% of the disputed tax within 30 days and requiring the authority to 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