Madras High CourtTax LawAdministrative and Public Law

Madras HC Remands Landscaper’s GST Case After No Personal Hearing, Subject To 15% Disputed-Tax Deposit

Thanigai Landscapers,v.Deputy Commissioner (CT),

Madras HC Remands Landscaper’s GST Case After No Personal Hearing, Subject To 15% Disputed-Tax Deposit. Thanigai Landscapers, vs Deputy Commissioner (CT),. Madras High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner did not respond.

The court held

The Court quashed the appellate rejection order dated 20 May 2026 and set aside the assessment order dated 10 December 2025, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

It also directed

The setting aside takes effect upon payment of the further 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks; the petitioner must then file its reply within three weeks. The authority must issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matter on the merits and in accordance with law.

The bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order and proof of payment. W.P. No. 44455 of 2026 was disposed of and W.P. No. 44450 of 2026 was allowed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 10 December 2025 and an appellate rejection order dated 20 May 2026 concerning FY 2021–22.

pp. 1–2

Notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not seen them and had not received the show-cause notice otherwise. The assessment was made without a personal hearing; the petitioner’s appeal was rejected.

pp. 3–4

The petitioner had paid 10% of the disputed tax and offered to pay a further 15%.

p. 3, 5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner did not respond.

pp. 3–5

ii.2. Whether the appeal rejection order and attachment of the petitioner’s bank account should be set aside, and the matter remitted subject to payment of a further 15% of the disputed tax.

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, under which service through the modes specified in that provision is valid; it identified registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD) as a preferable alternative where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices.

p. 5

The Court also proceeded on the requirement that the taxpayer receive an effective opportunity to be heard before an adverse assessment is confirmed, particularly where no personal hearing was provided.

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 2

Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 169

04Reasoning

Although portal service was legally sufficient, the Court considered that the absence of any response to notices should have prompted the officer to explore other modes of service permitted by Section 169, rather than proceed through what the Court described as empty formalities.

pp. 4–5

The assessment confirmed the show-cause proposals without a personal hearing, and the State’s counsel acknowledged that no such hearing had been provided. In light of these circumstances and the petitioner’s offer to pay an additional 15% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the assessment and appellate rejection and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

pp. 3–5

05Holding

The Court quashed the appellate rejection order dated 20 May 2026 and set aside the assessment order dated 10 December 2025, remanding the matter for fresh consideration.

p. 6

The setting aside takes effect upon payment of the further 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks; the petitioner must then file its reply within three weeks. The authority must issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and decide the matter on the merits and in accordance with law.

p. 6

The bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the order and proof of payment. W.P. No. 44455 of 2026 was disposed of and W.P. No. 44450 of 2026 was allowed.

pp. 6–7
Madras High Court

Original Court PDF

Thanigai Landscapers,vsDeputy Commissioner (CT),

Madras High Court · October 30, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment