M/S. V.C.R. Traders R. HEMALATHA, C.S. SREE NARAYAN ,S. RUCKMANI DEVI ,PRIYADHARSHINI ,A. RITHIKA ,E. KEERTHAVARSHINI ,DEVANAND J.R. ,PRASHANTH . N ,RAJU.D. vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC) — WP/21515/2026

Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 16th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011208602026

e-Filing Number

30-05-2026

Filing Number

WP/88284/2026

Filing Date

01-Jun-2026

Registration No

WP/21515/2026

Registration Date

05-Jun-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

16-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 17-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Others Section 1

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.M/S. V.C.R. Traders R. HEMALATHA, C.S. SREE NARAYAN ,S. RUCKMANI DEVI ,PRIYADHARSHINI ,A. RITHIKA ,E. KEERTHAVARSHINI ,DEVANAND J.R. ,PRASHANTH . N ,RAJU.D.

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF

    The Madras High Court set aside a GST tax demand order dated 29.12.2025 against M/S. V.C.R. Traders, finding it was issued without providing the petitioner a reasonable hearing opportunity. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, after which the respondent must issue a fresh order within three months following due process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 16-Jun-2026

    For Admission

    Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

  4. 01-Jun-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WP/21515/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Madras High Court set aside a GST tax demand order dated 29.12.2025 against M/S. V.C.R. Traders, finding it was issued without providing the petitioner a reasonable hearing opportunity. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days, after which the respondent must issue a fresh order within three months following due process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case