MS Engineering Shearing and Folding Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

MS Engineering Shearing and Folding vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 16, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1451117

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/1451117
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Jun 16, 2026
Case Number: WP/21457/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

MS Engineering Shearing and Folding

Respondent

Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC)

Excerpt

.....of the assessment proceedings in gstin 33aqbpn0517a1zp / 2021- 22 dated 28.11.2025 and to quash this impugned order as illegal and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders by dropping the levy of tax, interest, penalty and fees as per the guidelines issued by the finance department circular no.hearing to the petitioner in this case. page1 of 4 for petitioner(s): mr.c. baktha siromoni for respondent(s): mr.l.gokulraj, government counsel (tax) **********orderan order dated 28.11.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.2. mr.l.gokulraj, learned government counsel (tax), accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.3. on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner. the writ petition has been filed shortly after the period of limitation expired.4. on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. an endorsement to that effect has been made on the bundle.5. subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, page2 of 4the 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 25% of the disputed tax demand.6. the writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. there shall be no order as to costs. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no rna to page3 of 4senthilkumar ramamoorthy, j.rna page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Tvl. M.S. Engineering Shearing and Folding Rep. By its Proprietrix M. Nithyakalyani, Plot No.1, Balaji Nagar, Opp Sted Ford Hospital, Ambattur, Chennai-600 053 ..Petitioner(s) Vs ..Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the assessment proceedings in GSTIN 33AQBPN0517A1ZP / 2021- 22 dated 28.11.2025 and to quash this impugned order as illegal and direct the respondent to pass fresh orders by dropping the levy of tax, interest, penalty and fees as per the guidelines issued by the Finance Department Circular No.
hearing to the petitioner in this case. Page1 of 4 For Petitioner(s): Mr.C. Baktha Siromoni For Respondent(s): Mr.L.Gokulraj, Government Counsel (Tax) **********

ORDER

An order dated 28.11.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

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

3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed shortly after the period of limitation expired.

4. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 25% of the disputed tax demand as a condition for remand. An endorsement to that effect has been made on the bundle.

5. Subject to the condition that the petitioner remits 25% of the disputed tax demand within thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, Page2 of 4

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 25% of the disputed tax demand.

6. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected writ miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No RNA To Page3 of 4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

RNA Page4 of 4

Same Court & Year Chennai · 2026 Same Parties MS Engineering Shearing and Folding vs Assistant Commissioner... Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy