Madras High Court
WP/38535/2026 of Sree Sakthi Murugan Engineering Works Vs The Deputy Commissioner CT on 29 September 2026
WP No. 38535 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 38535 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011908952026}
Sree Sakthi Murugan Engineering Works
Represented through Its proprietor
Arunachalam Emalavaramban,
107/1C-3,
Bhavani Main Road,
Veerappan Chathram,
Erode.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Commissioner CT
New Commercial Taxes building
3rd floor
S.F.No.400/1,7,8,46
Pudur B Village
Erode-638 002
2. The Assistant Commissioner CT
Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Chithode Assessment Circle, Erode.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent vide proceedings in reference No.ZD331225305941P dated 19.12.2025 and its consequential order of the 1st respondent vide proceedings in Reference Number ZD3305260347882 dated 6.5.2026 and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.S.Anbazhagan
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, Government Advocate (Taxes)
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
WP No. 38535 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 passed by the second respondent and the consequential appeal rejection order dated 06.05.2026 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all the transaction and financial condition were properly submitted to the respondents, while issuing the show cause notice. However without considering the same, the respondents have passed the impugned demand order dated 19.12.2025. Due to ill health, the petitioner has failed to file their appeal within time. Thereafter, the appeal against the aforesaid assessment order was preferred by the petitioner with a delay of 36 days. Since the petitioner has not filed the said appeal within a period of limitation, the first respondent rejected the same vide rejection order dated 06.05.2026. He would fairly submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay additional 5% of the disputed tax amount. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle.
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
WP No. 38535 of 2026
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the delay, in filing the appeal, has occurred only due to the fault on the part of the petitioner and requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
6. In the case on hand, the assessment order came to be passed by the second respondent on 19.12.2025. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 26.04.2026, i.e., with a delay of 36 days. Since the delay was beyond the condonable period, the said appeal was rejected by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 06.05.2026. According to the petitioner, since he was not well, they were unable to file the appeal within time.
7. The above reason assigned by the petitioner, for the delay in filing the appeal against the assessment order, appears to be genuine. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to condone the delay, in filing the appeal against the impugned assessment order, on terms.
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
WP No. 38535 of 2026
8. Therefore, though the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount as statutory pre-deposit while filing the appeal, considering the delay of 36 days, this Court directs the petitioner to pay additional 5% of the disputed tax amount within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as agreed by the petitioner, to the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:
i) The impugned rejection order dated 06.05.2026 is set aside and the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal against the assessment order is hereby condoned. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.
ii) If the appeal filed by the petitioner was completely rejected, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh appeal along with the copy of this order, within a period of two weeks from the date of payment of the said payment.
iii) Thereafter, the first respondent/Appellate Authority is directed to take the appeal on record and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after providing sufficient opportunity to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. W.M.P.No.43217 of 2026 is ordered. WMP.Nos.43218 and 43220/2026 are closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
WP No. 38535 of 2026
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner CT New Commercial Taxes building 3rd floor S.F.No.400/1,7,8,46 Pudur B Village Erode-638 002
2. The Assistant Commissioner CT Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Chithode Assessment Circle, Erode.
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )
WP No. 38535 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SK WP No. 38535 of 2026 07-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 17/10/2026 03:21:35 pm )