WP/41747/2026 of Mohamed Idhris Vs State Tax Officer (FAC ) on 16 October 2026

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed for the following relief : “calling for the records leading to the issuance of assessment order bearing reference No.ZD3306242655459 dated 24.06.2024 and detail order bearing reference No GSTN: 33BJBPM3614H1ZL/2019-20 dated 24.06.2024 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same and direct the first respondent herein to lift the lien placed on the petitioner’s bank account bearing No. 915010019881227 maintained with the second respondent.”

2. Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, learned Special Government Pleader accepts notice on behalf of the first respondent. With consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing 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 “Additional Notices” column in the GST common portal. Since the 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 first respondent without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

4. Further, she would submit that the petitioner undertakes to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the first respondent and also made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the first respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader for the first 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, the learned Special Government Pleader has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter to the first respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and 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 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 on 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 respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned order dated 24.06.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount, less the amount if any already paid, to the first 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 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.

11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition in W.M.P.No.46861 of 2026 is ordered and W.M.P.No.46863 of 2026 stands closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rap To

1. State Tax Officer (FAC ), Tondiarpet Assessment Circle, Chennai – 600 003.

2. The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, Prema Complex, 2737, East Main Street, Pudukkottai, Tamil Nadu – 622

001. KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. rap WP No. 41747 of 2026 16-10-2026