Sunrise Interior GAUTHAM RAM VITTAL GOVINDA RAJAN, SNEHA .R ,VIJAY V. ,VANDANA PARASURAM vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) — WP/17967/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 02nd June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011008952026

e-Filing Number

22-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/74821/2026

Filing Date

22-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/17967/2026

Registration Date

29-Apr-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

02-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 03-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sunrise Interior GAUTHAM RAM VITTAL GOVINDA RAJAN, SNEHA .R ,VIJAY V. ,VANDANA PARASURAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    Summary: The Madras High Court quashed a GST tax demand order issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.12.2025 against Sunrise Interior, finding the order was passed without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration with a condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days, after which the tax authority must issue a fresh order within three months following proper hearing procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 02-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

  4. 22-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/17967/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Madras High Court quashed a GST tax demand order issued by the Assistant Commissioner on 22.12.2025 against Sunrise Interior, finding the order was passed without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The Court remanded the matter for reconsideration with a condition that the petitioner remit 10% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days, after which the tax authority must issue a fresh order within three months following proper hearing procedures. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case