Sunrise Interior Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Sunrise Interior vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 02, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1452004

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/1452004
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Jun 02, 2026
Case Number: WP/17967/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sunrise Interior

Respondent

The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

Excerpt

.....praying for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records, relating to the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 bearing reference number: gstin: 33aiqpd7359h1z0/ 2021-2022 of the respondent and quash the same as being contrary to law and defective and direct the respondent to conduct a fresh proceeding according to the law. for petitioner(s): mr.vijay v for m/s.gautham ram vittal govinda rajanfor respondent(s): ms.amirta poonkodi dinakaran government counsel (tax) page1 of 4orderan order dated 22.12.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.2. ms.amirta poonkodi dinakaran, learned government counsel (tax) accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.3. on perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner.4. on instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 10% 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 10% of the disputedtax demand 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 10% of the disputed tax demand. page2 of 46. the writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. there shall be no order as to costs. index: yes/nospeaking/non-speaking orderneutral citation: yes/no to page3 of 4senthilkumar ramamoorthy, j.page4 of 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and WMP No. 19311 of 2026 M/s.Sunrise Interior., Represented by its Proprietor, Mr. Dileep Kumar Yadev, Having Office at 1st Floor, Plot No.B, South Reddy Street, Athipet, Chennai-600 058. ..Petitioner(s) Vs ..Respondent(s)
Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records, relating to the impugned order dated 22.12.2025 bearing Reference Number: GSTIN: 33AIQPD7359H1Z0/ 2021-2022 of the Respondent and quash the same as being contrary to law and defective and direct the Respondent to conduct a fresh proceeding according to the law. For Petitioner(s): Mr.Vijay V For M/s.Gautham Ram Vittal Govinda Rajan
For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Counsel (Tax) Page1 of 4

ORDER

An order dated 22.12.2025 is assailed on the ground that the petitioner did not have a reasonable opportunity to contest the tax demand on merits.

2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Counsel (Tax) accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that such order was issued without hearing the petitioner.

4. On instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to remit 10% 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 10% of the disputed

tax demand 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 10% of the disputed tax demand. Page2 of 4

6. The Writ Petition is disposed of on the above terms. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Index: Yes/No

Speaking/Non-speaking order

Neutral Citation: Yes/No To Page3 of 4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

Page4 of 4

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