JAI MARUTHI ENTERPRISES vs DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-01
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 43296 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 43296 of 2026
and WMP Nos.48604 and 48606 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012507522026}
Jai Maruthi Enterprises
Represent by its Proprietor D. VijayalakshmI,
1A, PALANIYAPPA COLONY, Annathanapatti,
Salem- 636002
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Deputy State Tax Officer-01
(ALSO known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer),
Annthanapatty Assessment Circle,
Salem District.
..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
files of the Respondent herein in FORM GST DRC-07 with Reference No
ZD3308242445278 dated 27.08.2024 in GSTIN 33AZEPV4153A1ZO /2019-
20 dated 27.08.2024 and quash the same.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:59 pm )
WP No. 43296 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr. N.Chandirasekar
For Respondent(s): Ms. Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
27.08.2024 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
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:59 pm )
WP No. 43296 of 2026
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 petitioner is voluntarily willing to
pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. To that effect, he has
also made an endorsement in the Court bundle. 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.
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,
subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional
Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available
on record.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:59 pm )
WP No. 43296 of 2026
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.
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.
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:59 pm )
WP No. 43296 of 2026
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 to the petitioner.
10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is willing to pay 25% 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 27.08.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this
Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 27.08.2024 is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration
on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of disputed tax
amount to the respondent within a period of four (4) 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. In the event, any amount is
already recovered or deposited, the petitioner is granted
liberty to adjust the said amount while making payment of
25% of the disputed tax amount.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:59 pm )
WP No. 43296 of 2026
(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.
W.M.P.No.48604 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original
impugned order, is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.48606 of
2026 is also closed.
29-10-2026
Asi
To
The Deputy State Tax Officer-01
(Deputy Commercial Tax Officer),
Annthanapatty Assessment Circle,
Salem District.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:59 pm )
WP No. 43296 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP No. 43296 of 2026
and WMP Nos.48604 and 48606 of 2026
29-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:59 pm )