Tvl Sri Hari Softwares vs The Deputy State Tax officer-1
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 43895 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 43895 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012314602026}
and
WMP Nos. 49254, 49258 & 49261 of 2026
Sri Hari Softwares
Rep by its proprietor Hariharan.N
4/82, 5th Main Road, Swaminathan Nagar,
Kottivakkam,
Kancheepuram,
Tamil Nadu-600041
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy State Tax officer-1,
Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle,
Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration,
Department Building,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035,
Tamilnadu.
2. ICICI Bank
Rep by its Bank Mangaer
No.183,S.V.Patel Salai,
Adjacent to Mission street
Raj Bhavan,
Pondicherry-605 001.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records relating to the impugned Ex parte assessment order bearing Reference
st
No.ZD331225274282L dated 17.12.2025 passed by the 1 respondent and
st
quash the same and consequently direct the 1 1st respondent to proceed afresh
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:14 pm )
WP No. 43895 of 2026
affording the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of submitting objections
producing supporting documents and of personal hearing.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Minu EJ for M/s. Gokul Ram Advocates And
Associates
For Respondent(s): Mr. I.Dinesh, Additional Government Pleader
(Tax) for R1
Mr. Krishnaa for M/s. Acuity Law Associates for
R2
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
st
17.12.2025 passed by the 1 respondent.
2. Mr.I.Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax), takes
st
notice on behalf of the 1 respondent and Mr. Krishnaa, learned counsel takes
nd
notice on behalf of the 2 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
st
notices/communications were uploaded by the 1 respondent under the a “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
st
the 1 respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:14 pm )
WP No. 43895 of 2026
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner undertakes to pay 20% of
st
the disputed tax amount to the 1 respondent and also made an endorsement to
that effect in the case bundle. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an
st
opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the 1 respondent by
setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Tax)
st st
appearing for the 1 respondent would submit that the 1 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, subject to the payment of 20% of the disputed tax amount by the
petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and 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
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:14 pm )
WP No. 43895 of 2026
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.
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., the
Officer 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
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:14 pm )
WP No. 43895 of 2026
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
the petitioner is willing to pay 20% of the disputed tax amount to the
respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this
Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 17.12.2025 is set aside and the
st
matter is remanded to the 1 respondent for fresh
consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 20% of
st
disputed tax amount to the 1 respondent within a period of
four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from
the date of payment of the said amount.
(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.
st
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the 1
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.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:14 pm )
WP No. 43895 of 2026
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, WMP.No.49254/2026 is ordered and other miscellaneous
petitions are closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SK / KSK
To
1. The Deputy State Tax officer-1,
Thiruvanmiyur Assessment Circle,
Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration,
Department Building,
Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035,
Tamilnadu.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:14 pm )
WP No. 43895 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
SK
WP No. 43895 of 2026
and
WMP Nos. 49254, 49258 & 49261 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 04:17:14 pm )