The Parotta King vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1

WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
WMP Nos.50073, 50074, 50077 and 50079 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012608942026}
The Parotta King,
Rep. by its Proprietor,
Murugesan Jaiganesh,
No.190, Velachery Main Road,
Pallikaranai, Chennai,
..Petitioner in both W.Ps.
Tamilnadu 600 100
Vs
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1
Medavakkam Assessment Circle,
No.571, Integrated Commercial Taxes
And Registration Department,
(South Tower), Room No.232,
nd
2 Floor, Nandanam,
Chennai 600 035
..Respondent in
W.P.44601 of 2026
The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Medavakkam Assessment Circle,
No.46, Room No.213, II Floor,
Mylapore Taluk Office Building,
Greenways Road, R.A.Puram,
Chennai 600 028
..Respondent in
W.P.44607 of 2026
Prayer in W.P.No.44601 of 2026:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
thereby calling for the records of the Respondent herein in impugned order in
Form DRC-07 having reference No.ZD330225120409R dated 13.02.2025 for
the financial year 2020-21 passed under Section 73 of the Tamilnadu Goods
and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
herein after referred to as GST Act, 2017 and quash the same as arbitrary, unjust
and illegal and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct
the respondent to consider the matter afresh on merits after providing an
opportunity of personal hearing.
Prayer in W.P.No.44601 of 2026:- This Writ Petition is filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus
thereby calling for the records of the Respondent herein in impugned order in
Form DRC-07 having reference No.ZD331225219605M dated 15.12.2025 for
the financial year 2020-22 passed under Section 73 of the Tamilnadu Goods
and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
herein after referred to as GST Act, 2017 and quash the same as arbitrary, unjust
and illegal and violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct
the respondent to consider the matter afresh on merits after providing an
opportunity of personal hearing.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr. M.Govindarajan
in both W.Ps.
For Respondent(s):
Mr. I.Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
in both W.Ps.
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
COMMON ORDER
The present Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated
13.02.2025 and 15.12.2025 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
Petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases,
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, these petitions have been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is voluntarily willing to
pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent in respect of each
assessment order. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the Court
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
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 orders.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the
notices in the GST Online Portal as well as by sending them via RPAD. 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 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
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
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.
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
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
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 orders dated 13.02.2025 and 15.12.2025 passed by the respondent.
Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 13.02.2025 and
15.12.2025 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the
respondent concerned for fresh consideration on condition that
the petitioner pays 25% of disputed tax amount to the
respondent in respect of each assessment order, 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 pursuant
to the assessment order, the petitioner is granted liberty to
adjust the said amount while making payment of 25% of the
disputed tax 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.
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
(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, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No
costs. W.M.P.Nos.50073 and 50077 of 2026 filed to dispense with the
production of the impugned orders, are allowed. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed.
02-11-2026
Asi
To
1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1
Medavakkam Assessment Circle,
No.571, Integrated Commercial Taxes
And Registration Department
(South Tower), Room No.232,
nd
2 Floor, Nandanam,
Chennai 600 035.
2. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,
Medavakkam Assessment Circle,
No.46, Room No.213, II Floor,
Mylapore Taluk Office Building,
Greenways Road, R.A.Puram,
Chennai 600 028
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP Nos. 44601 and 44607 of 2026
WMP Nos.50073, 50074, 50077 and 50079 of 2026
02-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )