WP/43053/2026 of Tvl NAC Jewellers Pvt Ltd Vs State Tax Officer on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for the Respondents.

2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to quash the Order dated 29.12.2025 and consequential Summary Order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Ref No.ZD331225436428F dated 29.12.2025 issued by the 1st Respondent and direct the 1st Respondent to consider the matter afresh on merits, after granting the Petitioner a reasonable opportunity to file objections, produce supporting documents and participate in a personal hearing, subject to the conditions to be imposed by this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that upon scrutinizing the returns filed by the Petitioner for the Financial Year 2021-22, it was found that the Petitioner did not pay the tax at 5% on a reverse charges for its outward supplies to unregistered goldsmiths who carry out job work on the gold bars or gold biscuits to make jewellery. Hence, the 1st Respondent had issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 on 27.09.2025 calling upon the Petitioner to file a reply to the said notice. In response to the Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner filed its Reply in Form GST DRC-06 on 27.10.2025. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent has passed the Assessment Order dated 29.12.2025 along with Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, confirming the tax and penalty proposed in the Show Cause Notice and directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.48,480/-.

4.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Show Cause Notice and the impugned Assessment Order were uploaded on the Online GST Portal and the same were not served to the Petitioner through physical mode. The Petitioner’s Accounts Manager who was monitoring the Online GST Portal has resigned his job and the Petitioner failed to monitor the Online GST Portal and thus, the Petitioner could not file any reply to the Show Cause Notice and prefer an appeal against the impugned Assessment Order in time.

4.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondent is an ex-parte order since prior to the passing of Assessment Order, the Petitioner was not heard by the 1st

Respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned Assessment Order suffers from a violation of the principles of natural justice.

4.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the impugned Assessment Order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded back to the 1st Respondent for fresh consideration.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the Respondents fairly submitted that since the Petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought in this Writ Petition may be considered.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the Respondents and perused the materials available on record.

7. According to the Petitioner, the Show Cause Notice and the impugned Assessment Order were merely uploaded on the Online GST Portal and were not served to the Petitioner through physical mode. The Petitioner’s Accounts Manager who was monitoring the Online GST Portal has resigned his job and the Petitioner failed to monitor the Online GST Portal. Consequently, the Petitioner was unable to file any Reply/Objection to the Show Cause Notice and prefer an Appeal against the impugned Assessment Order in time. Furthermore, the 1st Respondent passed the Assessment Order without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in Online GST Portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, despite of 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 notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity, “CGST Act”) which are also the valid mode of service under the CGST Act, otherwise, the service of notice will not be deemed to be an effective service, rather, it would only amount to fulfilling the empty formalities.

9. Merely passing an ex-parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave the way for a 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. Thus, when there is no response from the taxpayer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing the notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, preferably by way of RPAD which would ultimately achieve the object of the CGST Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there has been a lack of effort in applying the available opportunities to serve notices/orders etc., effectively on the Petitioner and the impugned Assessment Order suffers from a violation of the principles of natural justice.

10. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:

(i) The impugned Order dated 29.12.2025 and the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 dated 29.12.2025 passed by the 1st Respondent are quashed and the matter is remanded back to the 1st Respondent for fresh consideration, on condition that the Petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) It is made clear that quashing of the impugned order will come into effect, only from the date of deposit of 25% of the disputed tax by the Petitioner.

(iii) The Petitioner is directed to file its Reply/Objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks thereafter.

(iv) On filing of such Reply/Objection by the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. 16-10-2026 mrr Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To

1. State Tax Officer, Mandaveli Assessment Circle, Station Room No.423, IV-Floor, Integrated Building for CT and Regn. Dept., Chennai - 600 035.

2. Deputy Commissioner (ST), Chennai (South), Room No.211, PAPJM Building, 2nd Floor, Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. mrr W.P.No.43053 of 2026 16-10-2026