Ashok George vs The State Tax Officer,
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 44429 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 44429 of 2026
and WMP Nos.49852 and 49856 of 2026
Ashok George,
Former Director of
M/s.Ankasummor Foods Private Limited,
Registered Office at Plot No.96,
nd
Rajiv Nagar 2 Main Road, Vanagaram,
Chennai – 600 077.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Tax Officer,
(Formerly known as Commercial Tax Officer),
K.K.Nagar Assessment Circle,
th
No.1, PAPJM Annex Building, 5 Floor,
Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
..Respondent
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 the records relating
to the impugned order-in-original passed in Form GST DRC-07 bearing
Reference No.ZD331225210769F dated 15.12.2025 by the respondent under
Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017 for the Financial Year 2021-22,
upon examination thereof, and quash the same as illegal without jurisdiction and
violative of the principles of natural justice.
__________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44429 of 2026
For Petitioner: Mr.Thyagarajan K.
For Respondent(s): Mr.I.Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order
passed by the respondent, along with the consequential demand notice issued in
Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No. ZD331225210769F dated
15.12.2025.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner closed its business operations in the year 2024 due to severe financial
distress. Consequently, the assessment proceedings initiated in the year 2025
culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. He further submits that the
petitioner was not in a position to pay the alleged tax liability. It is contended
that as far as the taxable turnover within the State of Tamil Nadu is concerned,
the petitioner has already discharged its tax liability. The learned counsel argues
that the impugned assessment order suffers from a patent jurisdictional error;
while reconciling Form GSTR-9C, the respondent erroneously treated the PAN-
India consolidated turnover of the entire company, including turnovers relating
__________
Page 2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44429 of 2026
to distinct GST registrations in Karnataka and Telangana, as though it
represented the turnover of the Tamil Nadu GST registration alone. If the
impugned order is permitted to stand, it would result in double taxation,
compelling the petitioner to pay CGST and SGST in Tamil Nadu on the very
same turnover upon which GST has already been discharged in Karnataka and
Telangana. Such an assessment is wholly beyond the territorial jurisdiction of
the GST authorities of the State of Tamil Nadu. Therefore, he prays that the
impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded to the respondent for
fresh consideration on merits.
3. Per contra , the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for
the respondent submits that show-cause notices and reminders were duly served
upon the petitioner through the GST portal as well as via RPAD. Hence, no
fault can be attributed to the respondent. He, however, submits that subject to
the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount, this Court may
consider remanding the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration.
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent, and
perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page 3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44429 of 2026
5. On a perusal of the record, it is manifest that the respondent uploaded
the Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 on the common portal on
26.09.2025. Thereafter, three reminders were issued, including a physical notice
sent via RPAD on 24.10.2025, which was returned as "undelivered" on
04.11.2025.
6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the business was closed down in the year 2024. In the event a business is closed
down, a statutory duty is cast upon the taxpayer to intimate the status of closure
to the jurisdictional authority concerned and to formally apply for the
surrender/cancellation of the GST registration. The petitioner cannot plead its
own omission as an excuse to evade assessment. The respondent has taken all
reasonable and legal steps to serve the notice by uploading it on the portal and
by dispatching it through RPAD. This Court appreciates the diligence shown by
the respondent in attempting service via physical post. The failure to receive
these documents points towards a deliberate attempt by the petitioner to avoid
service for reasons best known to it, presumably to evade the tax liability.
__________
Page 4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44429 of 2026
7. The petitioner now contends that the PAN-India turnover was
erroneously taken into consideration. During the course of arguments, it was
submitted that the petitioner has discharged tax on the actual Tamil Nadu
turnover amounting to Rs.5.03 Crores. However, in the impugned proceedings,
the respondent authority has quantified the tax liability at Rs. 45,34,291/-
towards CGST and Rs. 45,34,291/- towards SGST. Even in an ex-parte
assessment, unless the regular tax liability is fully discharged, the calculations
are bound to reflect the returns on record. Here, the tax amount stands
quantified based on the available data. The petitioner disputes this
quantification and attempts to argue the merits of the case on factual grounds.
Furthermore, regarding the balance sheet reflecting a turnover of Rs. 11.46
Crores, the petitioner claims this belongs to branches outside Tamil Nadu.
These are highly disputed factual matrices that cannot be adjudicated by this
Court in the exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
8. This Court is also not inclined to accept the request for remand,
particularly in view of the fact that the respondent had uploaded the statutory
notice on the GST portal and had also taken steps to serve the same through
RPAD. The petitioner, having failed to respond to the notices and having not
taken appropriate steps to intimate the closure of its business to the GST
__________
Page 5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44429 of 2026
authorities, cannot, at this stage, seek an automatic remand of the proceedings.
Under such circumstances, this Court declines to remand the matter. The
appropriate course of action available to the petitioner to challenge the
quantified assessment is to prefer a statutory appeal before the Appellate
Authority.
9. With the above observations, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs. W.M.P. No. 49852 of 2026 filed to dispense with
the production of the original impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05-11-2026
Asi
To
The State Tax Officer,
(Formerly known as Commercial Tax Officer),
K.K.Nagar Assessment Circle,
No.1, PAPJM Annex Building, 5th Floor,
Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.
__________
Page 6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44429 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP No. 44429 of 2026
and WMP Nos.49852 and 49856 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page 7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )