Madras High Court
WP/38215/2026 of M/S. S.V AGENCY Vs THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER on 8 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 38215 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012134942026}
AND
WMP NO. 42924 OF 2026,WMP NO. 42926 OF 2026
M/s. S.V Agency
Represented by its Proprietor,
Mr. Pradeep Kumar,
No.193/1, Anna Main Road,Kolapakkam,
Chennai-600 128.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Deputy State Tax Officer
Guindy Assessment Circle,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Department of Commercial Taxes,
Room No.253 and 255 Second Floor,
Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Building, Tower, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of mandamus call for the records of Impugned assessment order in Reference No. ZD33122532858M dated 22.12.2025 under section 73 of CGST Act,2017 and uploaded the same along with the summary of Order in DRC-07 for the financial year 2021-2022 from the files of the Respondent herein, QUASH the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.P.Maneshwarar for Mr.Amarath Shakthi.T
For Respondent(s):
Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, Government Advocate (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
This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned Assessment Order dated 22.12.2025.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner proprietorship firm deals with trading and distribution of Milk and Dairy products. Thereafter due to personal reasons, the petitioner was not able to continue with the business and decided to stop its operation. As a consequence to the same, the GST registration of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 25.05.2023. Now the petitioner is working in private employment. While so, the authorities had passed the impugned assessmnet order on the ground that there was an output tax discrepancy. The petitioner came to the knowledge of the impugned order through his new accountant who dealing with his personal filings. It is further submitted that as the petitioner firm was closed even prior to the issuance of the show cause notice in DRC-01, he was not in a position to give his explanation and had no opportunity to visit the GST portal after closure of the business.
3. He further contends that the mandatory requirement of an effective personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act has not been complied with, and that the order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
4. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount with the respondent.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent had uploaded the notices on the GST online portal, but the petitioner failed to avail of the said opportunity. However, he fairly admitted that no opportunity of a personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. Furthermore, since the notices were issued subsequent to the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the disputed tax amount.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Taxes) 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 only under the specific tab of the GST portal. According to the petitioner, they were not aware of the issuance of the said show-cause notice via the portal, as it was issued subsequent to the cancellation of their GST registration, and the physical copy of the said notice was never served upon them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording an opportunity of a personal hearing to the petitioner, thereby 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 has voluntarily cancelled their GST Registration. When such being the case, all the communications should have been sent to the e-mail id provided by the petitioner. However, the respondent had failed to do so. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
11. That apart, now, the petitioner is willing to pay 10% 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 22.12.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 22.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% 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 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.
12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WMP.No.42924/2026 is ordered and WMP.No.42926/2026 is closed. 08-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To The Deputy State Tax Officer Guindy Assessment Circle, Government of Tamilnadu, Department of Commercial Taxes, Room No.253 and 255 Second Floor, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Building, Tower, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SK WP No. 38215 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 42924 OF 2026,WMP NO. 42926 OF 2026 08-10-2026