Ms Cauaveri Plastic General Stores R. HEMALATHA, C.S. SREE NARAYAN ,S. RUCKMANI DEVI ,RAJU.D. ,PRIYADHARSHINI ,A. RITHIKA ,E. KEERTHAVARSHINI ,DEVANAND J.R. ,PRASHANTH . N vs The State Tax Officer — WP/21512/2026
Case under Others Section 1. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OF on 16th June 2026.
CNR: HCMA011222532026
e-Filing Number
03-06-2026
Filing Number
WP/89323/2026
Filing Date
03-Jun-2026
Registration No
WP/21512/2026
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
Petitioner(s)
-
1.Ms Cauaveri Plastic General Stores R. HEMALATHA, C.S. SREE NARAYAN ,S. RUCKMANI DEVI ,RAJU.D. ,PRIYADHARSHINI ,A. RITHIKA ,E. KEERTHAVARSHINI ,DEVANAND J.R. ,PRASHANTH . N
Respondent(s)
-
1.The State Tax Officer
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
16-Jun-2026
Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar RamamoorthyView PDF
Case Summary: WP 21512/2026 The Madras High Court set aside a GST tax demand order issued against Ms. Cauaveri Plastic General Stores for FY 2021-2022, finding the order was issued without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty 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.
-
16-Jun-2026
For Admission
Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
-
03-Jun-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/21512/2026
Case Summary: WP 21512/2026 The Madras High Court set aside a GST tax demand order issued against Ms. Cauaveri Plastic General Stores for FY 2021-2022, finding the order was issued without providing the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The court remanded the matter for reconsideration on the condition that the petitioner remit 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty 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