Abil Security Services vs the Assistant Commissioner (St)

Abil Security Services vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jun 10, 2026

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1455505

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/1455505
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
Decided On: Jun 10, 2026
Case Number: WP/19829/2026

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Abil Security Services

Respondent

The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Excerpt

.....dated 01.12.2025 passed by the respondent under section 73 of the tngst act, 2017 and quash the same, and consequently direct the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and permitting the petitioner to submit all supporting documents.page1 of 4 for petitioner(s): m/s. t. suresh for respondent(s): ms.amirta poonkodi dinakaran, government counsel (tax) *********orderan order dated 01.12.2025 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 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 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 page2 of 4 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: 10-06-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Abil Security Services Rep. by its Proprietor, Aruldevaraj Suriya, No.4/31, Devin House, Bharathiyar Street, Palavakkam, Chennai 600041 ..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, calling for the records relating to the impugned order bearing Reference No. ZD3312250170127 / FY 2021-2022, dated 01.12.2025 passed by the Respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and quash the same, and consequently direct the Respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and permitting the Petitioner to submit all supporting documents.
Page1 of 4 For Petitioner(s): M/s. T. Suresh For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Counsel (Tax) *********

ORDER

An order dated 01.12.2025 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 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, 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 Page2 of 4 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 Abil Security Services vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) Same Judge Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy