Sakthi Wedding Cards M/S. P. Rajkumar, SAMUEL RUPESH RAJKUMAR ,C. SIVASUBRAMANIAN vs The Deputy State Tax Officer II, — WP/19826/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011006922026

e-Filing Number

23-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/74663/2026

Filing Date

24-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/19826/2026

Registration Date

15-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.Sakthi Wedding Cards M/S. P. Rajkumar, SAMUEL RUPESH RAJKUMAR ,C. SIVASUBRAMANIAN

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Deputy State Tax Officer II,

  2. 2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

  3. 3.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 10-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    Summary of WP No. 19826/2026 The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order dated 11.12.2025 passed against Sakthi Wedding Cards, finding the order was issued without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days, after which the tax authority must issue a fresh order within three months following a fair hearing. 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. 24-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/19826/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary of WP No. 19826/2026 The Madras High Court set aside a GST assessment order dated 11.12.2025 passed against Sakthi Wedding Cards, finding the order was issued without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days, after which the tax authority must issue a fresh order within three months following a fair hearing. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case