M SAMPATH Vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

M Sampath vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 01, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1445136

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/1445136
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Jun 01, 2026
Case Number: WP/15983/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M Sampath

Respondent

The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise

Excerpt

.....to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in order-in-original no.24 / 2022-23(st) dated 31.03.2023 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to afford the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply, produce documents and be heard on merits.for petitioner(s): mr.ganesh raj for respondent(s): mr. k.s.ramasamy, spc page1 of 4orderan order in original dated 31.03.2023 is assailed primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.2. mr.k.s.ramasamy, learned senior panel counsel, accepts notice for the respondent.3. on perusal of the order impugned herein, it is evident that such orderwas issued without hearing the petitioner. the petitioner asserts that he shifted from the address to which notices were sent.4. on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner consents to pay 50% of the tax demand as a condition for remand. he has made an endorsement to that effect on the file.5. considering the aforesaid, in order to provide the petitioner anopportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, the order impugned herein is set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the tax demand, as agreed to, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. page2 of 46. subject to the fulfillment of the above condition, the respondent shallprovide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of compliance with the condition. therefore, the bank attachment shall stand raised. no costs. consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no rna to excise madhavaram division, anna nagar, chennai 40 page3 of 4senthilkumar ramamoorthy, j.rna page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
M/s.M.Sampath No.30, Nandanar Street, Vivekanandhar Nagar, Chennai - 600118. Rep. by its Proprietor M. Sampath. ..Petitioner(s) Vs Excise, Madhavaram Division, Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040 ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Respondent in Order-in-Original No.24 / 2022-23(ST) dated 31.03.2023 and quash the same, and consequently direct the Respondent to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to file a reply, produce documents and be heard on merits.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.Ganesh Raj For Respondent(s): Mr. K.S.Ramasamy, SPC Page1 of 4

ORDER

An order in original dated 31.03.2023 is assailed primarily on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

2. Mr.K.S.Ramasamy, learned senior panel counsel, accepts notice for the respondent.

3. On perusal of the order impugned herein, it is evident that such order

was issued without hearing the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that he shifted from the address to which notices were sent.

4. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner consents to pay 50% of the tax demand as a condition for remand. He has made an endorsement to that effect on the file.

5. Considering the aforesaid, in order to provide the petitioner an

opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits, the order impugned herein is set aside, subject to the condition that the petitioner pays 50% of the tax demand, as agreed to, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Page2 of 4

6. Subject to the fulfillment of the above condition, the respondent shall

provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner and issue a fresh order within three months from the date of compliance with the condition. Therefore, the bank attachment shall stand raised. No costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No RNA To Excise Madhavaram division, Anna Nagar, Chennai 40 Page3 of 4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties M Sampath vs The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Ex... Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy