M/s. Fairose Traders vs The State Tax Officer
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
and WMP Nos. 49945, 49953 and 49955 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012552002026}
M/s. Fairose Traders
Represented by its Proprietor Mr. B. Kadarmeeran,
No. 67, Coramandal Town, SIDCO Industrial Estate,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600098.
..Petitioner in all W.Ps.
Vs
The State Tax Officer
Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Ambattur, Kancheepuram Division,
Tamil Nadu.
..Respondent in
W.P.No.44485/2026
The State Tax Officer-2
Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Ambattur, Kancheepuram Division,
Tamil Nadu.
..Respondent in
W.P.Nos.44492 and
44499/2026
Assistant Commissioner ST Review FAC
Ambattur Zone,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai 600 006
nd
..2 respondent in
W.P.No.44499/2026
__________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
WP No. 44485 of 2026
PRAYER: 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 of the impugned order bearing Reference No.33ATBPK4962H1ZR/
2028-19 dated 04.12.2025 along with its summary in Form DRC 07 bearing
Reference No.ZD331225063725G dated 04.12.2025 passed by the respondent
and quash the same being, arbitrary, passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice
WP No. 44492 of 2026
PRAYER: 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 bearing Reference
No.33ATBPK4962H1ZR/ 2021-22 dated 27.04.2026 along with its summary in
Form DRC 07 bearing Reference No.ZD330426216167K dated 27.04.2026
passed by the respondent and quash the same being, arbitrary, passed in
violation of the principles of natural justice
WP No. 44499 of 2026
PRAYER: 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 of the impugned order bearing Reference No.33ATBPK4962H1ZR/
2024-2025 dated 27.04.2026 along with its summary in Form DRC 07 bearing
Reference No.ZD3304262169179 dated 27.04.2026 passed by the 1st
respondent and quash the same being, arbitrary, passed in violation of the
principles of natural justice, as well as in contravention of Rule 86A of the
__________
Page 2 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
nd
CGST Rules 2017 and direct the 2 respondent to unblock the Electronic
Credit Ledger
For Petitioner :
Mr. N.Sri Prithvi Reddy
in all W.Ps.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. I. Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
in all W.Ps.
COMMON ORDER
The present Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated
04.12.2025, 27.04.2026, and 27.04.2026, along with their respective summaries
in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the respondent.
2. Mr. I.Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) takes
notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main Writ
Petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases,
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 3 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner. Therefore, these petitions have been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is voluntarily willing to
pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent in respect of each
assessment order. 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 orders.
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, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal
hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order.
Therefore, he 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.
__________
Page 4 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned 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
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
__________
Page 5 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
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 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 orders dated 04.12.2025, 27.04.2026 and 27.04.2026 passed by the
respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 04.12.2025, 27.04.2026
and 27.04.2026 along with their respective summaries in Form
GST DRC-07, are set aside and the matters are remanded to
__________
Page 6 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
the respondent concerned for fresh consideration on
condition that the petitioner pays 25% of disputed tax
amount to the respondent in respect of each assessment
order, 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 pursuant to the assessment order, the petitioner is
granted liberty to adjust the said amount while making
payment of 25% of the disputed tax 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 concerned 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, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
05-11-2026
Asi
__________
Page 7 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
To
1. The State Tax Officer
Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Ambattur, Kancheepuram Division,
Tamil Nadu.
2. The State Tax Officer-2
Pattaravakkam Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Ambattur, Kancheepuram Division,
Tamil Nadu.
3. Assistant Commissioner ST Review FAC
Ambattur Zone,
Commercial Taxes Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Chennai 600 006
__________
Page 8 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
Asi
WP Nos. 44485, 44492 and 44499 of 2026
and WMP Nos. 49945, 49953 and 49955 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page 9 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )