Nandika Trading Company (A Sole Proprietorship represented by kumarasamy venkadasalam - proprietor) M.P.yuvaraj, SAMRIDDHI S,BHAGAVATH P,S.MUTHU vs The State Tax Officer, — WP/19043/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010985432026

e-Filing Number

21-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/73027/2026

Filing Date

21-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19043/2026

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.Nandika Trading Company (A Sole Proprietorship represented by kumarasamy venkadasalam - proprietor) M.P.yuvaraj, SAMRIDDHI S,BHAGAVATH P,S.MUTHU

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State 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 dated 30.12.2025 against Nandika Trading Company, finding breach of natural justice principles as the petitioner had not replied to show cause notice or participated in hearings. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days, after which a fresh order must be issued within three months following a reasonable opportunity to be heard. 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. 21-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19043/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court set aside a tax order dated 30.12.2025 against Nandika Trading Company, finding breach of natural justice principles as the petitioner had not replied to show cause notice or participated in hearings. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days, after which a fresh order must be issued within three months following a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case