PON MALAR, vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 45149 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 45149 of 2026
and WMP No.50672 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA011558122026}
Pon Malar,
D/o.Ramalingam,
Proprietrix M/s. J.P.Enterprises
No. 33, Rukumani Nagar,
Adyar, Chennai-600 020
GSTIN 33BTBPP8540B3ZX
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Kotturpuram Assessment Circle,
Integrated Registration and Commercial Taxes
Building, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035
2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Kotturpuram Assessment Circle,
Integrated Registration and Commercial Taxes
Building, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035
..Respondent(s)
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 respondent No.2 submitting the records relating to the impugned
order bearing reference No.ZD3312253987905 dated 26.12.2025 passed under
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45149 of 2026
Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2021-22 and
quash the same for being the non-application of mind, in violation of the
principles of natural justice and authority of law, and also direct the 2nd
respondent to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner with supporting
documents providing the stand of the petitioner
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Vinodh B.
For Respondent(s): Mr. I. Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
26.12.2025 passed by the second 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 second 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
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45149 of 2026
be passed by the second 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 10% 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 second
respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondents would submit that the second 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 second
respondent, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount by the
petitioner.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45149 of 2026
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional
Government Pleader for the respondents 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 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45149 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 10% of the disputed tax amount to the second
respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order 26.12.2025 passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, this
Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 26.12.2025 is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh
consideration on condition that the petitioner pays 10% of
disputed tax amount to the second respondent within a period
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45149 of 2026
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.
(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
second 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. There
shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
12-11-2026
Asi
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45149 of 2026
To
1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Kotturpuram Assessment Circle,
Integrated Registration and Commercial Taxes,
Building, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035
2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Kotturpuram Assessment Circle,
Integrated Registration and Commercial Taxes,
Building, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45149 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP No. 45149 of 2026
and WMP No.50672 of 2026
12-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )