M/s. United Enterprise K G JAYASURIYA, A P KARVENTHAN,M.SHANMUGA,THAKKA RAJAN,R HARISH KUMAR vs Superintendent of GST — WP/21302/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 15th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA010985902026

e-Filing Number

19-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/73055/2026

Filing Date

20-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/21302/2026

Registration Date

04-Jun-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

15-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 16-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/s. United Enterprise K G JAYASURIYA, A P KARVENTHAN,M.SHANMUGA,THAKKA RAJAN,R HARISH KUMAR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Superintendent of GST

  2. 2.The Principal Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise (Audit)

  3. 3.Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation Limited

  4. 4.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Limited

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. United Enterprise's writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice, holding that the case hinges on factual determination of whether the petitioner's rooftop solar-generated electricity was entirely captively consumed or partially supplied to TANGEDCO. The court allowed the petitioner to respond to the notice with supporting documentation and pursue further remedies if necessary, but declined to quash the notice at the interim stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 15-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

  4. 20-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/21302/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court dismissed M/s. United Enterprise's writ petition challenging a GST show cause notice, holding that the case hinges on factual determination of whether the petitioner's rooftop solar-generated electricity was entirely captively consumed or partially supplied to TANGEDCO. The court allowed the petitioner to respond to the notice with supporting documentation and pursue further remedies if necessary, but declined to quash the notice at the interim stage. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case