SAP Builders Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

SAP Builders vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 04, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1441384

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1441384
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Jun 04, 2026
Case Number: WP/18110/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

SAP Builders

Respondent

The Assistant Commissioner (ST),

Excerpt

in the high court of judicature at madrasdated: 04-06-2026coramthe hon'ble mr justice senthilkumar ramamoorthy sap builders (through its proprietor, mr. praveen kumar) 318, flat no, c34, iii floor, garden city apartments, village road, nungambakkam, chennai 600 034. ..petitioner vs ..respondent writ petition has been filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records of the 1st respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 vide gstin: 33azmpp4886c1z2/ 2020-21, quash the same. for petitioner: mr. shoaib fazil s for respondent: mr. l.gokulraj government counsel (tax)orderan order dated 21.11.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. page1 of 32. mr. l.gokulraj, learned government counsel (tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.3. the period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired. on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to pay 100% of the disputed tax demand. an endorsement to that effect is made on the bundle.4. subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 100% of the disputedtax demand, as agreed to, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. after providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 100% of the disputed tax demand.5. the writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. consequently,connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. there shall be no order as to costs. index: yes/no neutral citation: yes/no (2/2) kj page2 of 3 senthilkumar ramamoorthy j. kj to (2/2) page3 of 3

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY SAP Builders (Through its proprietor, Mr. Praveen Kumar) 318, Flat No, C34, III Floor, Garden City Apartments, Village Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034. ..Petitioner Vs ..Respondent Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the 1st Respondent pertaining to the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 vide GSTIN: 33AZMPP4886C1Z2/ 2020-21, quash the same. For Petitioner: Mr. Shoaib Fazil S For Respondent: Mr. L.Gokulraj Government Counsel (Tax)

ORDER

An order dated 21.11.2023 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits. Page1 of 3

2. Mr. L.Gokulraj, learned Government Counsel (Tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. The period of limitation for filing an appeal has expired. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to pay 100% of the disputed tax demand. An endorsement to that effect is made on the bundle.

4. Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 100% of the disputed

tax demand, as agreed to, within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for re-consideration. After providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, a fresh order shall be issued within three months from the date of remittance of 100% of the disputed tax demand.

5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently,

connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No (2/2) kj Page2 of 3 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J. KJ To (2/2) Page3 of 3

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties SAP Builders vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy