Tvl Rupmilan textile vs The Deputy state tax officer II(ST)
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 44456 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 44456 of 2026
and WMP No.49900 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012410432026}
Tvl Rupmilan Textile
represented by its proprietor Hanuwanth Singh
Ganpat Singh, No.70, Vysya Street, M.G. Road,
Hosur, Kirshnagiri District,
Tamil Nadu 635109
GSTIN- 33AVVPG6074C1ZI
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer II(ST)
Hosur South-3 Circle, Hosur, Krishnagiri District,
Tamil Nadu
2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Commerical Taxes Department Salem Tamilnadu
..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 culminating in the order dated 31.05.2025 bearing Reference Number
st
ZD330525348109D for the financial year 2018- 2019 passed by the 1
respondent and its consequential appeal rejection order bearing Reference No .
nd
ZD330226248038J dated 27.02.2026 passed by the 2 respondent and to quash
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:54 pm )
WP No. 44456 of 2026
st
both the orders and to direct the 1 respondent to adjudicate the proceedings
afresh on merits after affording the petitioner to reasonable opportunity to file
objections produce supporting documents and be heard in accordance with law.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sanjay J Rajpurohit
For Respondent(s): Mr. I. Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order
st
dated 31.05.2025 passed by the 1 respondent for the Financial Year 2018 –
2019, and the consequential appeal rejection order dated 27.02.2026 passed by
nd
the 2 respondent.
2. Mr. I. Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) takes
notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 first 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 assessment order came to be
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:54 pm )
WP No. 44456 of 2026
passed by the first 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 15% of the disputed tax amount to the first 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
first respondent by setting aside the impugned orders.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent would submit that the first 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
assessment order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to
the first respondent, subject to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax amount
by the petitioner.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:54 pm )
WP No. 44456 of 2026
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Additional
Government Pleader for the respondent 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 06:14:54 pm )
WP No. 44456 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 15% of the disputed tax amount to the first
respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned orders dated 31.05.2025 and 27.02.2026. Accordingly, this Court
passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned assessment order dated 31.05.2025 and the
appeal rejection order dated 27.02.2026 are set aside and the
matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh
consideration on condition that the petitioner pays 15% of
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:54 pm )
WP No. 44456 of 2026
disputed tax amount to the first 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.
(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
first 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 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 proof of payment of the said
amount and to permit the petitioner to operate the account
normally. The Bank shall also intimate the same to the first
respondent authority.
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:54 pm )
WP No. 44456 of 2026
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of.
W.M.P.No.49900 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the impugned
order, is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
05-11-2026
Asi
To
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer II(ST)
Hosur South-3 Circle, Hosur, Krishnagiri District,
Tamil Nadu
3. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)
Commerical Taxes Department Salem Tamilnadu
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:54 pm )
WP No. 44456 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP No. 44456 of 2026
and WMP No.49900 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 06:14:54 pm )