Bhawar Singh vs The Assistant Commissioner ST/
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 45291 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 45291 of 2026
and WMP Nos.50831 and 50832 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012631762026}
Bhawar Singh
Proprietor of Tvl. Ramdev Cool Spares,
Ground Floor, No.180,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road 100 Road.
MMDA Colony, Arumbakkam,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 106
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner ST/
Assistant Commissioner,
Pondy Bazaar Assessment Circle,
Station No.46, Greenways Road, Chennai 28
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records of the
impugned order in GSTIN 33AEEPB7793R1ZW /2023-24 dated 18.06.2026
along with DRC-07 Order under Section 73, ZD330626181918V dated
18.06.2026, on the file of the Respondent herein and the quash the same as
illegal, arbitrary against the principle of natural justice and against the law.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45291 of 2026
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Poojesh J.
For Respondent(s): Mr. I. Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated
18.06.2026 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
the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45291 of 2026
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 respondents 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 respondents and also perused the materials
available on record.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45291 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 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45291 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 18.06.2026 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court
passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 18.06.2026 is 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
liberty to adjust the said amount while making payment of
25% of the disputed tax amount.
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45291 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.
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs. W.M.P.No.50831 of 2026 filed to dispense with
the production of the original impugned order, is allowed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
12-11-2026
Asi
To
The Assistant Commissioner ST/
Assistant Commissioner,
Pondy Bazaar Assessment Circle,
Station No.46, Greenways Road, Chennai 28
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )
WP No. 45291 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP No. 45291 of 2026
and WMP Nos.50831 and 50832 of 2026
12-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:55 pm )