Bhanupriya.M vs The Assistant Commissioner - (State Tax)

WP No. 45329 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 45329 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012612982026}
AND
WMP NO. 50876 OF 2026,WMP NO. 50877 OF 2026,WMP NO. 50881 OF
2026
Bhanupriya.M
Proprietor of BMR Traders,
126/1C, Near Subhash School, Murugampalayam,
Mangalam Road, Tiruppur, Tamil Nadu-641687
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Assistant Commissioner - (State Tax)
Tiruppur (Rural) -2, Assessment Circle,
Tiruppur
2. Federal Bank
Tiruppur Main Branch,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
P.B. Box, No.419, Deepa Complex (Annex),
132-A, Mangalam road,
Tiruppur-641 604
..Respondent(s)
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking
the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for records pertaining to the
impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent dated 10.02.2025 bearing
Reference number ZD330225089966X and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sharukumar S.I
For Respondent(s): Mr.I.Dinesh, Additional Government Pleader
(Taxes) for R1
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45329 of 2026
Order
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order
in Form GST DRC-07 dated 10.02.2025.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent
initiated proceedings alleging certain discrepancies. The petitioner has
discontinued his business operations and, the petitioner’s GST registration was
cancelled with effect from 30.04.2024. The petitioner was under the bona fide
impression that all proceedings concerning the GST registration had come to an
end and that there were no further proceedings requiring its immediate attention,
particularly regarding online communications. Under such circumstances, the
impugned order came to be passed. The petitioner was not afforded an effective
opportunity to place its explanation and supporting documents before the
respondent prior to the passing of the impugned order. The proceedings were
concluded without properly considering the petitioner’s actual business
transactions, books of account, tax invoices, returns, Input Tax Credit (ITC)
particulars, and the reconciliation of the alleged differences. He further contends
that the mandatory requirement of an effective personal hearing under Section
75(4) of the CGST Act has not been complied with, and that the order has been
passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45329 of 2026
petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the
respondent.
4. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes )
appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent had uploaded the
notices on the GST online portal, but the petitioner failed to avail of the said
opportunity. However, he fairly admitted that no opportunity of a personal
hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned
order. Furthermore, since the notices were issued subsequent to the cancellation
of the petitioner's GST registration, he requested this Court to remit the matter
back to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the condition that the
petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent, and also perused the
materials available on record.
6. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show-cause notice was
uploaded only under the specific tab of the GST portal. According to the
petitioner, they were not aware of the issuance of the said show-cause notice via
the portal, as it was issued subsequent to the cancellation of their GST
registration, and the physical copy of the said notice was never served upon
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45329 of 2026
them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned
assessment order came to be passed without affording an opportunity of a
personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby confirming the proposals contained in
the show-cause notice.
7. 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.
8. 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
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45329 of 2026
that there has been a lack of effort in applying the available opportunities to
serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.
9. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
GST Registration was suo motu cancelled by the respondent. When such being
the case, all the communications should have been sent to the e-mail id provided
by the petitioner. However, the respondent had failed to do so. Under these
circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without
providing any opportunity of personal hearing, which is a clear violation of
principles of natural justice.
10. That apart, now, 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 10.02.2025 passed by the respondent.
Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 10.02.2025 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.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45329 of 2026
(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 have
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, immediately upon the production of a copy of this
order.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, WMP.No.50876/2026 is ordered and WMP.Nos.50877 and
50881 of 2026 are closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SK
To
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45329 of 2026
1. The Assistant Commissioner - (State Tax)
Tiruppur (Rural) -2, Assessment Circle, Tiruppur
2. The Branch Manager,
Federal Bank
Tiruppur Main Branch,
P.B. Box, No.419, Deepa Complex (Annex),
132-A, Mangalam road,
Tiruppur-641 604
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45329 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
SK
WP No. 45329 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 50876 OF 2026,WMP NO. 50877 OF 2026,WMP NO. 50881 OF
2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )