CHITRA WELDING WORKS vs The Deputy State Tax officer-II
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 42886 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 42886 of 2026
and
WMP Nos. 48214 & 48216 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012429432026}
Chitra Welding Works
Rep by its Proprietor
Suresh Kumar S/o.Mohanarangam
Ground floor No.22,
Nellikuppam Main Road,
Guduvancherry, Kancheepuram
Tamil Nadu 603 202
...Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Maraimalai Nagar Assessment Circle,
No.4/109, Second Floor,
Bangalore Chennai Highways
Varadhajapuram, Nazarathpet
Chennai-600 123
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records relating to the Respondents impugned summary of the order in FORM
GST DRC-07 vide ref. No. ZD3311250343411/2021-22 dated 03.11.2025 with
detailed Proceeding in GSTIN / 33CVCPS3725F2Z0/ 2021-22 Dated
03.11.2025 under Section 73 of the TNGST Act 2017 and quash the same and
consequently direct the Respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after
providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and
permitting the Petitioner to submit all supporting documents.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Bhoopalan.
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:51 pm )
WP No. 42886 of 2026
For Respondent(s): Ms.Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran,
Additional Government Pleader (Tax)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated
03.11.2025 passed by the respondent.
2. Ms.Amirtapoonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government
Pleader, 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 a “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.
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
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:51 pm )
WP No. 42886 of 2026
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 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, she 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 back to the respondent,
subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
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.
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:51 pm )
WP No. 42886 of 2026
8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service,
but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, despite of the fact that
there is no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the
Officer 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
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.
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:51 pm )
WP No. 42886 of 2026
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 dated 03.11.2025 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly,
this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 03.11.2025 is 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 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 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.
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:51 pm )
WP No. 42886 of 2026
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
W.M.P.No.48214 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of original
impugned order, is allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
VM
To:-
The Deputy State Tax officer-II
Maraimalai Nagar Assessment Circle No.4/109,
Second Floor,
Bangalore Chennai Highways
Varadhajapuram,
Nazarathpet
Chennai-600 123
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:51 pm )
WP No. 42886 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
VM
WP No. 42886 of 2026
28-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 03:38:51 pm )