M/s SK Enterprises, vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 43331 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 43331 of 2026
WMP Nos.48643 and 48644 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012495302026}
M/s SK Enterprises,
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr. Kingsley Swamy Nadar. (M/a 46 Yrs),
No. 40/1A, Vasantha Nagar,
IV Street, Thangal, Tiruvallur 600 019.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Thiruvottiyur Assessment Circle,
Elephant Gate Bridge Road,
Chennai.
..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 to quash the impugned assessment order dated
28.08.2024 bearing GSTIN no. 33CDTPS1335N1ZY/2019-20 in reference no.
ZD330824289815U passed by the Respondent as arbitrary and thus render
justice.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )
WP No. 43331 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Dhanalakshme. R
For Respondent(s): Ms. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order
dated 28.08.2024 passed by the respondent.
2. Ms. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, 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.
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )
WP No. 43331 of 2026
4. Further, she would submit that 100% of the tax liability has already be
recovered by the respondent. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an
opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by
setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader
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, she has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal
hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order.
Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent
for fresh consideration.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional
Government Pleader 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
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )
WP No. 43331 of 2026
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.
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
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )
WP No. 43331 of 2026
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 to the petitioner.
10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
100% of the tax liability has already been recovered by the respondent. In such
view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated
28.08.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the
following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 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 receipt of a copy of this order.
(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.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )
WP No. 43331 of 2026
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
W.M.P.No.48643 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original
impugned order, is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.48644 of
2026 is also closed.
29-10-2026
Asi
To
The Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Thiruvottiyur Assessment Circle,
Elephant Gate Bridge Road,
Chennai.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )
WP No. 43331 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP No. 43331 of 2026
WMP Nos.48643 and 48644 of 2026
29-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:08 pm )