TVL.CHANDRASEKARAN SURESH SECURITY AGENCY vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER (FAC)

WP No. 42761 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 42761 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA011882382026}
AND WMP NO. 48073 & 48077 OF 2026
Tvl.Chandrasekaran Suresh Security Agency
Rep. by its Sole Proprietor and Authorized
Representative, Lieutenant Colonel (Rtd)
Mr.Chandrasekaran Suresh,
04/212, Masthan Gori Street, Adambakkam,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 088.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The State Tax Officer (fac)
Nanganallur Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes and Reg.Dept.
(South Towers), Room No.224, II Floor,
Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
2. The Assistant Commissioner , (ST),
Nanganallur Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes and Reg. Dept.
(South Tower), Room No.224, II Floor,
Nandanam, Chennai-035.
3. The Zonal Manager, ICICI Bank,
Dare House Annex Ground Floor,
PB No.1610, No.44 Moore Street,
Parrys, Chennai- 600 001
(in charge of S.D. Road Branch
of Secunderabad Pin Code- 500 003)
4. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India
Zone II, Zonal Office, No.84 Rajajaji Sali,
6th Floor, Chennai- 600 001.(incharge of
Branch of A.S. Rao Nagar, Kapra,
Secunderabad 500 062.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:58 pm )

WP No. 42761 of 2026
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating
to the impugned orders, Order-in-Original bearing reference No.
ZD3312254418579, dated 30.12.2025,passed by the first respondent, and
consequent Garnishee under Form GST DRC 13 bearing GSTIN
33ABCPS7598E1ZB dated 12.05.2026 issued by the second respondent, and
quash the same and direct the first respondent to re-adjudicate
For Petitioner(s): Mr.R.Chandrasekaran
For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, AGP for R1 & 2
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.12.2025
passed by the respondent.
2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government
Pleader, 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.
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:58 pm )

WP No. 42761 of 2026
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.
5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner has already paid 10% of
the disputed tax amount and now, he is ready and willing to pay additional 5%
of the 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.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel 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 5%
of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:58 pm )

WP No. 42761 of 2026
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and
also perused the materials available on record.
8. 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.
9. 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: 30/10/2026 01:31:58 pm )

WP No. 42761 of 2026
the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate
Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
10. 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.
11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount and now, he is
ready and willing to pay additional 5% 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 30.12.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this
Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 30.12.2025 is set aside
and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh
consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay
additional 5% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent,
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:58 pm )

WP No. 42761 of 2026
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
rd th
survive any longer. As a sequel, the 3 & 4 respondents-
Banks are directed to de-freeze the bank account of the
petitioner, immediately upon the production of a copy of this
order along with the proof with regard to the payment made
by the petitioner as stated above.
(v) Further, upon payment of the aforesaid amount,
nd
the 2 respondent is directed to lift the Garnishee order dated
12.05.2026.
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:58 pm )

WP No. 42761 of 2026
12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.48077 of 2026 is closed.
The miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.48073 of 2026, which has been filed to
dispense with the production of original assessment order, is ordered.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsa
To
1. The State Tax Officer (fac)
Nanganallur Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes and Reg.Dept. (South
Towers), Room No.224, II Floor, Nandanam,
Chennai-600 035.
2. The Assistant Commissioner , (ST),
Nanganallur Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes and Reg. Dept.(South
Tower), Room No.224, II Floor, Nandanam,
Chennai-035.
3. The Zonal Manager, ICICI Bank, Dare House
Annex Ground Floor, PB No.1610, No.44
Moore Street, Parrys, Chennai- 600 001 (in
charge of S.D. Road Branch
of Secunderabad Pin Code- 500 003)
4. The Zonal Manager, State Bank of India
Zone II, Zonal Office, No.84 Rajajaji Sali,
6th Floor, Chennai- 600 001.(incharge of
Branch of A.S. Rao Nagar, Kapra,
Secunderabad 500 062.
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:58 pm )

WP No. 42761 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
nsa
WP No. 42761 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 48073 OF 2026,WMP NO. 48077 OF 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/10/2026 01:31:58 pm )