Madras High Court
WP/41666/2026 of Sri Suraj Builders Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer on 14 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 41666 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012344832026}
AND
WMP NO. 46732 OF 2026
Sri Suraj Builders
Represented by its Proprietor Mr.Subramanian Marivelmurugan No. 4/4, 2nd Cross Street First Main Road Natesan Nagar, Virugambakkam Chennai -600092
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Saligramam Assessment Circle
No.1516, Malligai Avenue,
1st Floor, 100 Feet Road,
Kolathur, Chennai
2. The Branch Manager DBS Bank
1st Floor 323 Arcot Road, Chennai
3. The Branch Manager Bank of Baroda
327, Natesan Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai
4. The Branch Manager State Bank of India 60, Kaliamman Koil Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus call for the records, relating to the Impugned Order dated 14.03.2024 in Reference No GSTIN
33AGAPM3644G1ZQ /2018-2019 along with the summary of order in Form GST DRC 07 in reference No. ZD330324083810M passed by the 1st
Respondent of the Respondent and quash the same as being contrary to law defective and direct the Respondent to conduct a fresh proceeding according to the law.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.G. GAUTHAM RAM VITTAL
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, Government Advocate (Taxes) for R1
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.03.2024passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the 1st 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 a “View Additional Notices and Orders” 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 1st respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is undertakes to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent and also made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the 1st respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st 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 1st 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., 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 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 14.03.2024 passed by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 14.03.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the 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 1st 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 have 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 concerned Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of a copy of this order.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer Saligramam Assessment Circle No.1516, Malligai Avenue, 1st Floor, 100 Feet Road, Kolathur, Chennai
2. The Branch Manager DBS Bank 1st Floor 323 Arcot Road, Chennai
3. The Branch Manager Bank of Baroda 327, Natesan Nagar, Virugambakkam, Chennai
4. The Branch Manager State Bank of India 60, Kaliamman Koil Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SK WP No. 41666 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 46732 OF 2026 14-10-2026