Madras High Court

WP/40697/2026 of Kumaraswamy Sekar Vs Assistant Commissioner (ST) on 13 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

WP No. 40697 of 2026

__________

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 13-10-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

WP No. 40697 of 2026

CNR:{HCMA012228652026}

AND

WMP NO. 45652 OF 2026

Kumaraswamy Sekar,

Proprietor of Ms KSB Construction

No. 408, NCTPS Road, Ponneri Taluk,

ThiruvalluR, Tamil Nadu- 600 120

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

Assistant Commissioner (ST),

Cholavaram Assessment Circle,

1st Floor, Room No.108, No.32,

Elephant Gate Bridge road,

Vepery, Chennai-600 003

..Respondent(s)

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records on the file of the Respondent leading to the issuance of Impugned Order passed by the Respondent dated 14.02.2025 vide Ref No ZD330225139724I/ 2020-2021 and quash the same, and consequently direct the Respondent to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after giving an opportunity of personal hearing.

For Petitioner(s):

Mr.A.G.Sathyanarayana

For Respondent(s):

Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran

Additional Government Pleader (T)

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:30 pm )

WP No. 40697 of 2026

__________

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

Order

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the respondent.

2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, the petitioner had not received physical copies of either the show cause notice or the notice of personal hearing. The show cause notice dated 25.11.2024 was merely uploaded on the GST Portal, which the petitioner had no occasion to access. Even the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 was uploaded on the GST Portal, without furnishing a physical copy to the petitioner. Hence he would submit that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period and prayed to set aside the impugned order directing the

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:30 pm )

WP No. 40697 of 2026 __________

respondent to permit the petitioner to file their reply and provide an opportunity of personal hearing so that the petitioner would be able to substantiate their case.

5. Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that if this Court feels that the matter warrants reconsideration, in terms of the voluntary submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax demand for the impugned assessment period, the impugned order may be set aside and the matter may be remanded for reconsideration.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice through the GST Portal and a physical copy of the said show cause notice was not served on the petitioner. In such circumstances, when the respondent did not

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:30 pm )

WP No. 40697 of 2026 __________

receive any reply/response from the petitioner to the show causes notice and when the statute provides for alternative modes of service of notice, it is incumbent upon the respondent to adopt an effective mode of service instead of repeatedly uploading the notices and reminders on the common portal. If such an effective mode of service has been adopted, the petitioner would have not been in a position to contend before this Court that the notices were not received.

8. Thus, this Court is of the view that the impugned order came to be passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law.

9. For the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court pass the following orders:-

(i) The order impugned herein is set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period, as agreed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:30 pm )

WP No. 40697 of 2026 __________

(ii) The petitioner is at liberty to make the aforesaid 25% deposit after deducting the amount, if any paid subsequent to the issuance of the impugned assessment order.

(iii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

(iv) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the 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.

(v) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, the concerned Bank is directed de-freeze of the petitioner's bank account forthwith and intimate the same to the respondent.

10. With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 13-10-2026 (1/2) Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No rst

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:30 pm )

WP No. 40697 of 2026 __________

To Assistant Commissioner (ST), Cholavaram Assessment Circle, 1st Floor, Room No.108, No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge road, Vepery, Chennai-600 003.

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:30 pm )

WP No. 40697 of 2026 __________

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:30 pm )

WP No. 40697 of 2026 __________

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. rst WP No. 40697 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 45652 OF 2026 13-10-2026 (1/2)

( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:16:30 pm )

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead