Sri Sapthagiri Electricals vs The Assistant Commissioner ST

Court
Madras High Court

WP No. 42890 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 42890 of 2026
and
WMP Nos. 48222 & 48226 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012344942026}
Sri Sapthagiri Electricals
Rep by its proprietor Mr.Sivaperumal
No.99/6, Krishnagiri Road,
Thiruppattur-635 601
...Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Assistant Commissioner ST
Thiruppattur Assessment Circle,
Thiruppattur-635 601.
2. The Branch Manager
IDBI Bank, No. 14, Ground Floor,
Pudupet Road, Tirupattur
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER : The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of
impugned Order dated 09.09.2025 bearing reference No. ZD330925093600B in
Form GST DRC-07 along with its annexure passed by the 1st Respondent in
Petitioners GSTIN 33BEFPS8862A1ZG for the FY 2021-22 and quash the
same and consequently raise the attachment of Petitioners Bank A/c
No.1739102000001526 maintained with the 2nd Respondent.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Anish Kumar
For Respondent(s): Ms. Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran,
Additional Government Pleader (Tax)
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:06 pm )

WP No. 42890 of 2026
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
09.09.2025 passed by the first respondent.
2. Ms.Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government
Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the first 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 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
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 undertakes to pay 25% of
the disputed tax amount to the respondent and also made an endorsement to that
effect in the case 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.
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:06 pm )

WP No. 42890 of 2026
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the first 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 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
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,
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:06 pm )

WP No. 42890 of 2026
but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, despite of 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
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 25% of the disputed tax amount to the
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:06 pm )

WP No. 42890 of 2026
respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order dated 09.09.2025 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly,
this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 09.09.2025 is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration
on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax
amount to the 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.
(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.
( iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has
been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment
made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any
longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the concerned
Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank account of the
petitioner, upon production of the proof of payment of the said
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:06 pm )

WP No. 42890 of 2026
amount along with a copy of this order by the petitioner and
permit them to operate the accounts normally.

11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
W.M.P.No.48222 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of original
impugned order, is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VM
To:-
1. The Assistant Commissioner ST
Thiruppattur Assessment Circle,
Thiruppattur-635 601
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:06 pm )

WP No. 42890 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
VM


WP No. 42890 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:06 pm )