Sithiraivel Velmurugan vs Deputy State Tax Officer 1 — WP/17998/2026

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

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011021302026

e-Filing Number

24-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/75749/2026

Filing Date

24-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/17998/2026

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.Sithiraivel Velmurugan

    Adv. C.Khathiravan,A.Prashanth,A.Prashanth, G.Sanjay,A.Prashanth

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.Deputy State Tax Officer 1

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 02-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 17998/2026 The Madras High Court quashed a GST tax demand order (dated 05.11.2025) issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer against Sithiraivel Velmurugan, finding it was issued without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the condition that the petitioner remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, after which the tax officer must issue a fresh order within three months while granting the petitioner adequate opportunity to contest the demand on merits. 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. 24-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/17998/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 17998/2026 The Madras High Court quashed a GST tax demand order (dated 05.11.2025) issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer against Sithiraivel Velmurugan, finding it was issued without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on the condition that the petitioner remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, after which the tax officer must issue a fresh order within three months while granting the petitioner adequate opportunity to contest the demand on merits. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case