Tvl Clear Secured Services Limited, vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)

WP No. 44710 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 44710 of 2026
and WMP Nos.50209 and 50211 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012581552026}
Tvl Clear Secured Services Limited,
(Formerly known as Clear Secured Services (P) Ltd.,)
(Represented by its Branch Manager, Prakash
Ramadoss), No. 1, Balaji Street, Kodambakkam,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 024.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Porur Assessment Circle,
No. 4/109, 1st Floor, Integrated State Taxes Offices
Building, Trunk road, Chennai Banglore Highway,
Varadharajapuram, Nazrethpet, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu - 600 123.
..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 relating
to the impugned assessment order issued in Form GST DRC-07 with Reference
No. ZD3302252033150 dated 20.02.2025 along with the detailed order in
GSTIN 33AADCC5952H1ZR/2020-21 for FY 2020-2021, and the
consequential rejection of the rectification application with reference No.
ZD331025057627G dated 08.10.2025, and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal,
__________
Page 1 of 8
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:08 pm )

WP No. 44710 of 2026
perverse, and violative of the principles of natural justice or pass such further or
other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. B.Syed Abdul Wakeel
For Respondent(s): Mr. I. Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
20.02.2025 and the consequential rejection of the rectification application dated
08.10.2025 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
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 8
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:08 pm )

WP No. 44710 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, 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.
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.
__________
Page 3 of 8
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:08 pm )

WP No. 44710 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 8
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:08 pm )

WP No. 44710 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 20.02.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this
Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 20.02.2025 and consequential
rejection of rectification application dated 08.10.2025 are 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
__________
Page 5 of 8
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:08 pm )

WP No. 44710 of 2026
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 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 orders
themselves have been set aside, this Court is of the opinion
that the attachment levied on the bank accounts of the
petitioner cannot survive and is liable to be lifted.
Consequently, the Bank concerned are directed to de-freeze
the bank accounts of the petitioner forthwith upon production
of a copy of this order. However, upon the de-freezing of the
said accounts, the petitioner shall first comply with the
directions of this Court by depositing/remitting the disputed
tax amount as ordered herein. Subject to the realization of
the said amount, the petitioner is permitted to utilize the
remaining balance for business operations and shall be
allowed to operate the bank accounts normally.
__________
Page 6 of 8
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:08 pm )

WP No. 44710 of 2026
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
W.M.P.No.50209 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original
impugned order, is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.50211 of
2026 is also closed.
02-11-2026
(1/2)
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy on or before 06.11.2026.
Asi
To
The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Porur Assessment Circle,
No. 4/109, 1st Floor, Integrated State Taxes Offices
Building, Trunk road, Chennai Banglore Highway,
Varadharajapuram, Nazrethpet, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu - 600 123.
__________
Page 7 of 8
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:08 pm )

WP No. 44710 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP No. 44710 of 2026
and WMP Nos.50209 and 50211 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:33:08 pm )