Balamurugan Traders R.Anish Kumar, PROMATHI.A,A.ABRAHAM JOHN SAMUEL vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), — WP/18900/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 08th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011045502026

e-Filing Number

28-04-2026

Filing Number

WP/77662/2026

Filing Date

28-Apr-2026

Registration No

WP/18900/2026

Registration Date

07-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

08-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 10-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.Balamurugan Traders R.Anish Kumar, PROMATHI.A,A.ABRAHAM JOHN SAMUEL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

  2. 2.The Branch Manager,

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 08-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    Case Summary: WP 18900/2026 The Madras High Court set aside a GST tax demand order dated 03.12.2025 against Balamurugan Traders for FY 2021-22, finding it was issued without hearing the petitioner, violating natural justice principles. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, conditional on the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days, with a fresh order to be issued within three months. The bank attachment was accordingly raised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 08-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

  4. 28-Apr-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/18900/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: WP 18900/2026 The Madras High Court set aside a GST tax demand order dated 03.12.2025 against Balamurugan Traders for FY 2021-22, finding it was issued without hearing the petitioner, violating natural justice principles. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration with a reasonable opportunity to be heard, conditional on the petitioner remitting 25% of the disputed tax demand within 30 days, with a fresh order to be issued within three months. The bank attachment was accordingly raised. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case