Madras High Court
WP/41217/2026 of M/s.SJR Pharmaceuticals Represented by its Partner Vs The State Tax Officer on 12 October 2026
WP No. 41217 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 41217 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012171232026}
AND
WMP NO. 46252 OF 2026,WMP NO. 46253 OF 2026
M/s.SJR Pharmaceuticals Represented by its Partner JAYASHANKAR S
No. 8/24, Norton Road,Mandaveli,Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 028.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The State Tax Officer
Mandaveli Assessment Circle,No. 423, 6th floor, Integrated Commercial taxes and registration department Building, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire records relating to the Impugned Assessment order vide GSTIN
33ACSFS4785L1Z8/2021-22 dated on 03.12.2025 and its consequential demand order in form GST DRC-07 under section 73 with Ref No ZD331225053863G passed by the Respondent, together with the consequential recovery proceedings initiated DRC-13 dated 12.08.2026 under Section 79 of the GST Act, 2017 and the TNGST Act, 2017, in GSTIN 33ACSFS4785L1Z8
2018-19 to 2021-22 issued by the Respondent and quash the same as being illegal, Arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the GST Act 2017 and violative of principles of natural justice and consequently direct the Respondent to lift the attachment over the Petitioners bank account forthwith and, if so advised, undertake any fresh adjudication strictly in accordance with the provisions of
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:17:28 pm )
WP No. 41217 of 2026
the CGST Act, 2017, the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017 and the Rules made thereunder, after issuing a proper Show Cause Notice, furnishing all relied upon materials and affording the Petitioner an effective and meaningful opportunity of personal hearing, and pass such further or other orders as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.D.Parasuram for Mr.Sankar Ganesh S
For Respondent(s):
Ms.G.Dhana Madhri, Special Government Pleader (Taxes)
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
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 03.12.2025.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent initiated proceedings under Section 74 of the CGST Act, alleging that the petitioner had availed excess Input Tax Credit (ITC). He contends that the proposal was issued without conducting any reconciliation of the petitioner’s books of accounts, purchase registers, and statutory records. Thereafter, the respondent issued successive reminder notices fixing dates for a personal hearing while prescribing those very same dates as the last date for filing objections. Such a procedure effectively deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to prepare its statement and produce supporting records.
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:17:28 pm )
WP No. 41217 of 2026
3. It is further submitted that despite fixing the personal hearing for 04.12.2025, the respondent passed the impugned ex parte assessment order on 03.12.2025, a day before the expiry of the time granted for the personal hearing and submission of objections. Under such circumstances, the petitioner was completely denied an effective opportunity to place its explanation and supporting documents before the respondent. Consequently, the proceedings were concluded without a proper consideration of the petitioner’s books of accounts, tax invoices, statutory returns, and ITC particulars. The learned counsel further contends that the mandatory requirement of an effective personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act has been bypassed, resulting in a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He adds that the petitioner is, however, willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount to prove their bona fides.
4. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent had duly uploaded the notices on the GST online portal, but the petitioner failed to avail of the said opportunities. However, she fairly admits that no effective opportunity for a personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order, given that the order was passed a day prior to the scheduled hearing date. Therefore, she requests this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the condition that the petitioner
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:17:28 pm )
WP No. 41217 of 2026
deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondent, and perused the materials available on record.
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the respondent’s act of passing the impugned ex parte assessment order on 03.12.2025, despite having scheduled the personal hearing for 04.12.2025, is a patent failure to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing. This is a clear and undeniable violation of the principles of natural justice.
7. That apart, the petitioner has volunteered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the respondent. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 03.12.2025.
8. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:—
(i) The impugned order dated 03.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 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
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:17:28 pm )
WP No. 41217 of 2026
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 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 petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the concerned Bank 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, WMP.NO.46252/2026 is ordered and WMP.No.46253/2026 is closed. 12-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:17:28 pm )
WP No. 41217 of 2026
To The State Tax Officer Mandaveli Assessment Circle,No. 423, 6th floor, Integrated Commercial taxes and registration department Building, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:17:28 pm )
WP No. 41217 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SK WP No. 41217 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 46252 OF 2026,WMP NO. 46253 OF 2026 12-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 27/10/2026 05:17:28 pm )