JAMUNA SURESH vs Superintendent of GST and Central Excise,

WP No. 41705 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 41705 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012374832026}
AND
WMP NO. 46802 & 46811 OF 2026
Jamuna Suresh
Trade Name S.JAMUNA
Represented by its Proprietrix
No.17, Pondy Main Road,
Manjakuppam, Cuddalore 607 001
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Superintendent of GST and Central Excise,
Cuddalore I Range,
BSNL CTO Building, Annexe Building,
1st Foor, Nellikuppam Main Road,
Cuddalore - 607 001
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of
Order of Assessment in DRC-07 / Order in Original No.21/2024 GST SUPDT
CUD - 1 dated 16.04.2024 passed by the respondent and to quash the same and
to further direct the respondent to pass fresh orders of assessment after granting
an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R Ganesh Kanna
For Respondent(s): Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, SPC
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:18 pm )

WP No. 41705 of 2026
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
16.04.2024 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.Rajendran Raghavan, learned Senior Panel Counsel, takes notice on
behalf of the respondent.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal
at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all
notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common
portal. Since the petitioner had failed to view the portal, they were not aware of
the said notices, due to which, 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. Hence, this petition has been filed.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:18 pm )

WP No. 41705 of 2026
5. Further, he would submit that one of the issues involved in the present
writ petition is with regard to the claim made by the petitioners for ITC, which
is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017. He
would also submit that the said issue has been squarely covered by the common
order dated 17.10.2024 passed in W.P.Nos.25081 of 2023, etc, whereby, this
Court had quashed the impugned order passed by the Department. Hence, he
requests this Court to pass appropriate orders.
6. That apart, he would submit that the petitioner has already paid the
entire disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to
grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent
by setting aside the impugned order.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
would submit that the respondent had duly issued the show cause notice to the
petitioner. 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 pass appropriate orders.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:18 pm )

WP No. 41705 of 2026
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and
also perused the materials available on record.
9. 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.
10. 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 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
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:18 pm )

WP No. 41705 of 2026
the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate
Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
11. 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 lack of efforts in exploring the available opportunities to
serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.
12. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
one of the issues involved in this petition is with regard to the claim made by
the petitioners for ITC, which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4)
of the CGST Act, 2017. As submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner,
the said issue was already dealt with by this Court in W.P.Nos.25081 of 2023,
etc, whereby, this Court, vide common order dated 17.10.2024, had quashed the
impugned order passed by the Department. In such view of the matter, this
Court is inclined to quash the impugned order only the aspect of aforesaid issue
pertaining to Section 16(4) of CGST Act. As far as other issue is concerned, this
Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed by
the respondent.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:18 pm )

WP No. 41705 of 2026
13. That apart, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner has already paid the entire disputed tax amount to the
respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order dated 16.04.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this
Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 16.04.2024 is quashed
only to the extent of issue that relates to the claim made by the
petitioner for ITC, which is barred by limitation in terms of
Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017.
(ii) As far as other issue is concerned, the impugned
order dated 16.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded
to the respondent for fresh consideration.
(iii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along
with the required documents, if any, within a period of three
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iv) 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.
14. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.46811 of 2026 is closed.
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:18 pm )

WP No. 41705 of 2026
The miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.46802 of 2026, which has been filed to
dispense with the production of the original assessment order, is ordered.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsa
To
Superintendent of GST and Central Excise,
Cuddalore I Range,
BSNL CTO Building, Annexe Building, 1st Foor,
Nellikuppam Main Road, Cuddalore - 607 001
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:18 pm )

WP No. 41705 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
nsa
WP No. 41705 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 46802 OF 2026,WMP NO. 46811 OF 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:18 pm )