TVL ROYAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION, vs The Deputy State Tax officer 1
- Court
- Madras High Court
WP No. 44270 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 44270 of 2026
and WMP Nos.49623 and 49625 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012207552026}
Tvl Royal Engineering Corporation,
Rep by its Sole Proprietor Mr CU Mathews
Formerly at, Town Club Road, Block 17,
Neyveli Township, Cuddalore,
Tamil Nadu 607 801.
Presently at residing at Chirappurathu House,
Opposite to Mangalam School, Manganam,
Kottayam, Kerala 686 018.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy State Tax officer 1
Panruti Rural
Office of the State Tax Officer, Panruti Rural,
Old Kumbakonam Road,
Commercial Tax Building 1st floor,
Near Taluk office, Panruti 607 106
2. State Bank Of India
P.B No. 19, Thirunakkara S Road, Thirunakara
Maidanam, Kottayam, Kerala 686 001.
..Respondent(s)
__________
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44270 of 2026
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the
st
file of the 1 respondent pertaining to the impugned order bearing Reference
No. GSTIN / 33AIPPM4721M1ZX / 2019-20 dated 05.07.2024 passed by the
1st Respondent under the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017, and quash the
same, and pass a DE NOVO order,
For Petitioner(s): Ms. Shalini E
For Respondent(s): Mr. I. Dinesh
Additional Government Pleader (Taxes)
ORDER
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order
dated 05.07.2024 passed by the first respondent.
2. Mr. I. Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) takes
notice on behalf of the first 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 “View
Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the
__________
Page 2 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44270 of 2026
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, she would submit that the petitioner is voluntarily willing to
pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the first respondent. To that effect, she
has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle. Hence, she requests this
Court to grant an opportunity 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 first 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 first
respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the
petitioner.
__________
Page 3 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44270 of 2026
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the 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
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
__________
Page 4 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44270 of 2026
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 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 first
respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the
impugned order dated 05.07.2024 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly,
this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 05.07.2024 is set aside and the
matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh
consideration on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of
disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four
__________
Page 5 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44270 of 2026
(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, 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.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the
first 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 has
been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment
made on the bank account of the petitioner, cannot survive any
longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the second
respondent Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank account of
the petitioner, immediately upon proof of payment of the said
amount and permit them to operate the account normally. The
Bank shall intimate the same to the first respondent authority.
__________
Page 6 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44270 of 2026
11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There
shall be no order as to costs. W.M.P.No.49623 of 2026 filed to dispense with
the production of the impugned order, is allowed. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
05-11-2026
(1/2)
Asi
To
1. The Deputy State Tax officer 1,
Panruti Rural,
Office of the State Tax Officer, Panruti Rural,
Old Kumbakonam Road,
Commercial Tax Building 1st floor,
Near Taluk office, Panruti 607 106
2. The State Bank Of India
P.B No. 19, Thirunakkara S Road, Thirunakara
Maidanam, Kottayam, Kerala 686 001.
__________
Page 7 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )
WP No. 44270 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Asi
WP No. 44270 of 2026
and WMP Nos.49623 and 49625 of 2026
05-11-2026
__________
Page 8 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/11/2026 06:02:53 pm )