WP/43113/2026 of Galore Networks Private Ltd Vs The Assistant Commissioner ST on 16 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

The present Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the orders dated 15.11.2024, 17.12.2024 and 25.09.2026 passed by the first respondent.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders challenged in these Writ Petitions were passed ex-parte. He further submits that the notices and communications in these cases were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was unaware of the said notices, they failed to file a reply within the stipulated time. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders were passed by the respondent without affording the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing.

3. In response, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the first respondent fairly concedes that the impugned orders dated 15.11.2024 and 17.12.2024 were passed ex-parte. He states that regarding the impugned order dated 25.09.2026, a total of eight orders were passed, out of which two have been challenged in W.P. No. 43144 of 2026, and the remaining six are pending.

4. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to voluntarily deposit 20% of the disputed tax amount with the first respondent. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the Court bundles. Hence, he requests this Court to set aside the impugned orders and grant the petitioner an opportunity to present their case before the first respondent. He further clarifies that out of the remaining six orders, two have already been challenged before this Court by way of separate Writ Petitions, which are currently pending at the SR stage, and the petitioner is willing to deposit 20% of the disputed tax amount for those petitions as well. As for the remaining four unchallenged orders, the petitioner agrees to pay the tax amount in full.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the first respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notices were 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 notices were not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment orders came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, 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., 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.

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 to the petitioner.

9. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 20% of the disputed tax amount to the first respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned orders dated 15.11.2024, 17.12.2024 and 25.09.2026 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner pays 20% of disputed tax amount to the first respondent, in respect of each impugned order, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned orders 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 20% of the disputed tax amount.

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of four 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 orders itself have been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioners, cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the concerned Banks are directed to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank accounts of the petitioner, immediately upon proof of payment of the said amount.

10. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. No costs. W.M.P.Nos.48432, 48471 and 48453 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original impugned orders, are allowed. W.M.P.No.48469 of 2026, filed to permit the petitioners in W.P.No.43144 of 2026, to file a single Writ Petition, is allowed subject to the payment of separate Court fees. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are also closed. 16-10-2026 Note: Issue order copy on 16.10.2026 Asi

To

1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Guindy Assessment Circle, South II, No. 255, 2nd Floor, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai, Tamil Nadu-600 035.

2. The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank 87-148, Mayur Greens, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560 034.

3. The Branch Manager Axis Bank Ltd. 225, Opposite Spencers Plaza, Anna Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 002.

4. The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Plot No. 10, Ground Floor, T S S Manore Arcot Road, Lakshmi Nagar, Porur, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600 116.

5. The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank 359/39 Bren Mercury, Koikondrahalli,Sarjapur Main Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560 035.

6. The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd. NIFT Campus, Site No. 21, 27th Main HSR Layout Sector 1, Bangalore 560 102.

7. The Branch Manager DBS BANK LTD 3rd Floor, Fort House, 221 Dr D.N. Road, Fort Mumbai 400 001.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. Asi WP Nos. 43113, 43144 and 43129 of 2026 and WMP Nos.48432, 48437, 48441, 48469, 48471, 48477, 48481, 48453, 48454 and 48455 of 2026 16-10-2026