ADHINARAYANAN MUTHURAJ vs THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER/ THE STATE TAX OFFICER
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 43993 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 43993 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012547252026}
and
WMP Nos. 49355 & 49356 of 2026
Adhinarayanan Muthuraj
Proprietor of M/s SRI SANISWARA TRADERS,
No. 3/72, Chettipalayam Road, Kallapalayam,
Coimbatore,
Tamil Nadu 641201
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Commercial Tax Officer/ The State Tax
Officer,
Palladam 2 Assessment Circle,
Palladam, Tiruppur I, Erode,
Tamil Nadu
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the
file of the respondent and quash the Impugned Order under section 74 of the
Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax
Act, 2017 including the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 both
dated 24.02.2023 and having Reference Number No. ZD3302231223243 in
GSTIN: 33CCMPM6942H1ZB passed by the respondent for the FY 2019-20.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. M.Ramesh
For Respondent(s): Mr. I.Dinesh, Additional Government Pleader
(Tax)
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:15 pm )
WP No. 43993 of 2026
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
24.02.2023 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.I.Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) takes
notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main 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
notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View
Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the
petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within
the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by
the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the respondent has already recovered
entire amount of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. Hence, he requests
this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:15 pm )
WP No. 43993 of 2026
the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the
notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said
opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal
hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order.
Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondent and also perused the materials
available on record.
7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was
uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware
of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and
the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such
circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order
came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:15 pm )
WP No. 43993 of 2026
8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service,
but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, despite the fact that
there is no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., should
have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by
way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also
the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective
service, rather, it would only amount to fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely
passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any
useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations,
not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of
the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
9. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent
through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly
explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as
prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which
would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds
that there has been a lack of effort in applying the available opportunities to
serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.
10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:15 pm )
WP No. 43993 of 2026
the respondent has already recovered entire amount of the disputed tax amount
from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside
the impugned order dated 24.02.2023 passed by the respondent. Accordingly,
this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 24.02.2023 is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with
the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks
from the date of payment of amount as stated above.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the
respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear
notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner
and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in
accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as
expeditiously as possible.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, WMP.No.49355/2026 is ordered and WMP.No.49356/2026 is
closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SK / KSK
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:15 pm )
WP No. 43993 of 2026
To
The Commercial Tax Officer/ The State Tax Officer,
Palladam 2 Assessment Circle,
Palladam, Tiruppur I, Erode,
Tamil Nadu
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:15 pm )
WP No. 43993 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
SK
WP No. 43993 of 2026
and
WMP Nos. 49355 & 49356 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:15 pm )