WP/42006/2026 of SRI ROONWAL MARKETING PRIVATE LIMITED Vs The Staet Tax officer on 13 October 2026

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order and the consequential demand notice, both dated 22.04.2026 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr. B. Sivaraman, learned Government Advocate (T) takes notice on behalf of the 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 “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 first respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that 100% of the tax demand has already been recovered by the department. Under such circumstances, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and the matter be remanded back to the respondent, thereby granting the petitioner a fair opportunity to present their case on merits.

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (T) appearing for the respondent would submit that the 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 prays that this Court remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to verification of the amount recovered.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Advocate (T) for the respondent and also 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 to the petitioner.

10. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire tax demand has already been recovered by the respondent department. In view of the said submission, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the respondent, and remit the matter back for fresh consideration. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:

(i) The impugned order and the consequential demand notice both dated 22.04.2024 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the verification of the tax amount already recovered;

(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; and

(iii) 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.

11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. W.M.P.No.47134 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original impugned order is allowed. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.47136 of 2026 is also closed. 13-10-2026 Asi To The State Tax officer Peddunaickenpet Assessment circle Integrated commercial Taxes building NO.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road Chennai-600 003

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. Asi WP No. 42006 of 2026 and WMP Nos.47134 and 47136 of 2026 13-10-2026