Sree Shanmuga Steels S.DURAIRAJ, MADHUMITHA.K,KIRUTHIKA.R,S.ARVINDH,MARIA SANJANA.J,G.DERRICK SAM vs The State Tax Officer (ST) — WP/17625/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011014422026

e-Filing Number

21-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/75217/2026

Filing Date

21-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/17625/2026

Registration Date

28-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
U/s 11 of the Trade Unions Act, 1926

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Sree Shanmuga Steels S.DURAIRAJ, MADHUMITHA.K,KIRUTHIKA.R,S.ARVINDH,MARIA SANJANA.J,G.DERRICK SAM

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The State Tax Officer (ST)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: WP 17625/2026 Sree Shanmuga Steels challenged a GST tax order dated 8.12.2025 issued by the State Tax Officer, alleging breach of natural justice principles. The High Court of Madras found the appeal period had expired but accepted a settlement where the petitioner agreed to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand. The court set aside the original order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, requiring the tax authority to issue a fresh order within three months of receiving the 25% payment and after granting the petitioner reasonable opportunity to be heard. 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. 21-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/17625/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: WP 17625/2026 Sree Shanmuga Steels challenged a GST tax order dated 8.12.2025 issued by the State Tax Officer, alleging breach of natural justice principles. The High Court of Madras found the appeal period had expired but accepted a settlement where the petitioner agreed to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand. The court set aside the original order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, requiring the tax authority to issue a fresh order within three months of receiving the 25% payment and after granting the petitioner 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