HARI NARAIN THAKUR vs The Deputy State Tax Officer-1,

WP No. 45371 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 45371 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012600482026}
AND
WMP NO. 50918 OF 2026,WMP NO. 50920 OF 2026
Hari Narain Thakur
Proprietor, M/s.Thakur Electricals,
1721, Sector-8, Faridabad- 121 006, Haryana
Registered Place of Business
122, Bharathiyar Street, Sogandy Village,
S.V.Chathiram Post,
Sriperumbudur-602 108
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1,
Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Building, Bangalore High
Road,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet, Poonamallee,
Chennai-600 123
2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Building, Bangalore High
Road,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet, Poonamallee,
Chennai-600 123
..Respondent(s)
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 of the
1st respondent relating to the impugned order dated 5.12.2025 and the summary
order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No.ZD3312250836296 and lift
the attachment of the petitioners account and quash the same as it is violation of
Principle of Natural Justice, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent to
__________
Page1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45371 of 2026
afford the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to file its reply with supporting
documents and a personal hearing
For Petitioner(s): Mr.D.Krish Santheep
For Respondent(s): Mr.R,Sethu Prabakaran, Government Advocate
(Taxes)
Order
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order in
Form GST DRC-07 dated 05.12.2025.
2. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (Tases), 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 the
petitioner’s business was closed, and he made application for GST registration
st
cancellation and it is pending. Subsequently, the 1 respondent initiated
proceedings and issued the impugned order dated 05.12.2025, following which
the recovery proceedings against the petitioner were initiated. It was only then
that the petitioner became aware of the series of proceedings against him and all
st
notices/communications were uploaded by the 1 respondent under the a “View
Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. The
petitioner was under the bona fide impression that all proceedings concerning
__________
Page2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45371 of 2026
the GST registration had come to an end and that there were no further
proceedings requiring its immediate attention, particularly regarding online
communications. Under such circumstances, the impugned order came to be
passed. The petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity to place its
explanation and supporting documents before the respondent prior to the
passing of the impugned order. The proceedings were concluded without
properly considering the petitioner’s actual business transactions, books of
account, tax invoices, returns, Input Tax Credit (ITC) particulars, and the
reconciliation of the alleged differences. He further contends that the mandatory
requirement of an effective personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST
Act has not been complied with, and that the order has been passed in gross
violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the
respondent.
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes )
appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent had uploaded the
notices on the GST online portal, but the petitioner failed to avail of the said
opportunity. However, he fairly admitted that no opportunity of a personal
hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned
__________
Page3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45371 of 2026
order. Furthermore, since the petitioner’s business was closed, he requested this
Court to remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject
to the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent, and also perused the
materials available on record.
6. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show-cause notice was
uploaded only under the specific tab of the GST portal. According to the
petitioner, they were not aware of the issuance of the said show-cause notice via
the portal, as they have closed their business and applied for GST registration
cancellation, and the physical copy of the show cause notice was never served
upon them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned
assessment order came to be passed without affording an opportunity of a
personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby confirming the proposals contained in
the show-cause notice.
7. 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., the
Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending
__________
Page4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45371 of 2026
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.
8. 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.
9. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner has closed his business. When such being the case, all the
communications should have been sent to the e-mail id provided by the
petitioner. However, the respondent had failed to do so. Under these
circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without
providing any opportunity of personal hearing, which is a clear violation of
principles of natural justice.
__________
Page5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45371 of 2026
10. That apart, now, 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 05.12.2025 passed by the respondent.
Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 05.12.2025 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.
(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself
have been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the
__________
Page6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45371 of 2026
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 the production of a copy of
this order.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, WMP.No.50918/2026 is ordered and WMP.No.50920/2026 is
closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
SK
To
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1,
Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Building, Bangalore High Road,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet, Poonamallee,
Chennai-600 123
2. The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle,
Commercial Taxes Building, Bangalore High Road,
Varadharajapuram, Nazarathpet, Poonamallee,
Chennai-600 123
__________
Page7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )

WP No. 45371 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
SK
WP No. 45371 of 2026
AND
WMP NO. 50918 OF 2026,WMP NO. 50920 OF 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/11/2026 04:18:23 pm )