M/s.JB ENTERPRISES vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST)
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 45131 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 45131 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012540362026}
M/s.JB ENTERPRISES
Rep by its Proprietor, Mr.Ansar khan Basheer
Khan,
Shop No.4, Ground Floor, Perambur Barracks
Road,
Pattalam, Chennai- 600 012.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Commissioner (st)
GST Appeals, Chennai- 6,
No.1, PAPJM Buildings (Annex),
Third Floor, Greams Road, Chennai- 600 006.
2. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (st) /
Deputy State Tax Officer -I,
Choolai Assessment Circle,
No.1 PAPJM Buildings (Annex)
1st Floor, Greams Road, Chennai- 600 006.
..Respondent(s)
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 order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Form GST
DRC-07 dated 10.04.2026, bearing Ref. No. ZD3304260941397, quash the
same as being violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently
remit the matter back to the 2nd Respondent for fresh consideration, after
affording the Petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard,
and direct the 2nd Respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance
with law, within such time as may be stipulated by this Court.
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )
WP No. 45131 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr.N.Ganesh, for Mr.J Balasundar
For Respondent(s): Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, Special Government Pleader
(Taxes)
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
nd
10.04.2026 passed by the 2 respondent.
2. Ms.G.Dhana madhri, learned Special 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 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 is 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
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )
WP No. 45131 of 2026
opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by
setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Special Government (Taxes) 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 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.
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )
WP No. 45131 of 2026
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
that there has been a lack of effort in applying the available opportunities to
serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )
WP No. 45131 of 2026
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 10.04.2026 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this
Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 10.04.2026 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.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SK
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )
WP No. 45131 of 2026
To
1. The Deputy Commissioner (st)
GST Appeals, Chennai- 6,
No.1, PAPJM Buildings (Annex),
Third Floor, Greams Road, Chennai- 600 006.
2. Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (st) /
Deputy State Tax Officer -I,
Choolai Assessment Circle,
No.1 PAPJM Buildings (Annex)
1st Floor, Greams Road, Chennai- 600 006.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )
WP No. 45131 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
SK
WP No. 45131 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )