Sarvah Infra Private Limited, G.NATARAJAN, S.SRIDEVI,K.RAMYA,N.ASMITHA,J.RAGINI vs The State Tax Officer (FAC) (Intelligence), — WP/19078/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010969432026

e-Filing Number

16-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/71805/2026

Filing Date

16-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19078/2026

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.Sarvah Infra Private Limited, G.NATARAJAN, S.SRIDEVI,K.RAMYA,N.ASMITHA,J.RAGINI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State Tax Officer (FAC) (Intelligence),

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    Case Summary: WP/19078/2026 Sarvah Infra Private Limited challenged a tax order dated 29.09.2025 by the State Tax Officer (FAC), alleging breach of natural justice principles and violations of the CGST Act and Constitutional provisions. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded it for reconsideration, conditioned on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days. The tax authority must provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and issue a fresh order within three months of payment. 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. 16-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19078/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP/19078/2026 Sarvah Infra Private Limited challenged a tax order dated 29.09.2025 by the State Tax Officer (FAC), alleging breach of natural justice principles and violations of the CGST Act and Constitutional provisions. The Madras High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded it for reconsideration, conditioned on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days. The tax authority must provide the petitioner a reasonable opportunity and issue a fresh order within three months of payment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case