M/s.Vanijya Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd., vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),

WP No. 42190 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 27-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 42190 of 2026
and
W.M.P.Nos.47362 and 47363 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012298472026}
M/s.Vanijya Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd.,
Represented by its Director,
Mr. Nagarajan Suresh, No.9, 7th Street,
Nandanam Extension, Nandanam, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu – 600 035.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),
Nandanam Assessment Circle, Room No. 229,
2nd Floor,
Integrated Building for Commercial Taxes and
Registration Department Building,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 035.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the
records leading to the issuance of impugned order reference Number
ZD331125443272T dated 25.11.2025 in Form DRC-07 along with connected
proceedings reference number GSTIN: 33AAACV1136B1Z3/2022-23 dated
25.11.2025 and consequential rejection of the application for rectification order
ZD330626188398S dated 19.06.2026 by the respondent herein and quash the
same, and direct the respondent to consider the matter afresh, after giving full
and fair opportunity to the petitioner to submit its reply and after affording
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass such further or other
orders as this Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the
case and thus render justice.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:41 pm )

WP No. 42190 of 2026
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.C.Prakash
For Respondent(s) : Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran,
Additional Government Pleader (Tax)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed for the following relief :
“ calling for the records leading to the issuance of
impugned order reference Number ZD331125443272T dated
25.11.2025 in Form DRC-07 along with connected
proceedings reference number GSTIN:
33AAACV1136B1Z3/2022-23 dated 25.11.2025 and
consequential rejection of the application for rectification
order ZD330626188398S dated 19.06.2026 by the respondent
herein and quash the same, and direct the respondent to
consider the matter afresh, after giving full and fair
opportunity to the petitioner to submit its reply and after
affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and
pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit
and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus
render justice.”
2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government
Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the learned
counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing at the
admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:41 pm )

WP No. 42190 of 2026
notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “Additional
Notices” 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 the respondent without
affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this
petition has been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner undertakes to pay 25% of
the disputed tax amount to the respondent and also made an endorsement to that
effect in the case 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 Special Government Pleader 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, the learned Special Government Pleader 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 to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax
amount by the petitioner.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:41 pm )

WP No. 42190 of 2026
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and 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
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 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:41 pm )

WP No. 42190 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 on 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 25.11.2025 and 19.06.2026 passed by the respondent.
Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 25.11.2025 and
19.06.2026 are 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 over and
above the statutory deposit 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.
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along
with the required documents, if any, within a period of three
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:41 pm )

WP No. 42190 of 2026
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.

11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions in W.M.P.No.47362 of
2026 is ordered as prayed for and W.M.P.No.47363 of 2026 stands closed.
27-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rap
To
The Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC),
Nandanam Assessment Circle, Room No. 229,
2nd Floor,
Integrated Building for Commercial Taxes and Registration Department
Building,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 035.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:41 pm )

WP No. 42190 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
rap
WP No. 42190 of 2026
27-10-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 03:55:41 pm )