GEE GEE ALLOYS vs State Tax Officer

Court
Madras High Court

WP No. 41641 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 41641 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012388172026}
AND
WMP NO. 46705 & 46706 OF 2026
Gee Gee Alloys
Rep by its proprietor
Govarthanam Kanchi praveen
No.250/282, M P S Salai,
Tirutani, Thiruvallur
Tamilnadu-631209
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
State Tax Officer
Office of the Commercial Tax Office,
Tiruttani Assessment Circle,
Tiruvallur Tamil Nadu
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying
for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the
files of The Respondent in the impugned Order in GSTIN 33BIUPP2933C2Z6/
2019-20 dated 22.07.2024 along with consequential order in Form GST
DRC-07 bearing a Ref. No. ZD3307242496190 dated 22.07.2024 for the tax
period April 2019 to March 2020, quash the same as being contrary to the
provision of CGST Act, 2017
For Petitioner(s): Mr.S.Rajendran
For Respondent(s): Mr.I.Dinesh Agp (t)
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:17 pm )

WP No. 41641 of 2026
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.07.2024
passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.I.Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on
behalf of the respondent.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal
at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all
notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common
portal. Since the petitioner had failed to view the portal, they were not aware of
the said notices, due to which, 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. Hence, this petition has been filed.
5. Further, she would submit that the petitioner has already paid a
substantial amount and now, he is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed
tax amount after deducting the amount already paid to the respondent. Hence,
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:17 pm )

WP No. 41641 of 2026
she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their
case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel 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, 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.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and
also perused the materials available on record.
8. 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: 29/10/2026 04:06:17 pm )

WP No. 41641 of 2026
9. 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 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.
10. 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 lack of efforts in exploring 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: 29/10/2026 04:06:17 pm )

WP No. 41641 of 2026
11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount after
deducting the amount already paid to the respondent. In such view of the matter,
this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed
by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 22.07.2024 is set aside
and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh
consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of
the disputed tax amount after deducting the amount already
paid 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.
12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.46706 of 2026 is closed.
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:17 pm )

WP No. 41641 of 2026
The miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.46705 of 2026, which has been filed to
dispense with the production of original assessment order, is ordered.
26-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
nsa
To
State Tax Officer
Office of the Commercial Tax Office,
Tiruttani Assessment Circle,
Tiruvallur Tamil Nadu
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:17 pm )

WP No. 41641 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
nsa
WP No. 41641 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 46705 OF 2026,WMP NO. 46706 OF 2026
26-10-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:17 pm )