Madras High Court
WP/38619/2026 of Roopika Mobiles Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer 1 Singanallur north C on 7 October 2026
WP No. 38619 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 38619 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012178362026}
AND
WMP NO. 43329 OF 2026,WMP NO. 43330 OF 2026
Roopika Mobiles
Rep by its Proprietor Arumugam Manikandan No 2318 -A B Trichy Road Ondipudur Coimbatore Tamil nadu 641 016
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Deputy State Tax Officer 1 Singanallur north Circle Singanallur north Circle Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641 018
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the order dated 20.11.2025 bearing reference NO. ZD3311253668292
pertaining to Financial Year 2021-22 passed by the respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.Vaani Sreekant Iyer
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
The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 20.11.2025.
WP No. 38619 of 2026
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned demand has been raised solely on the basis of an alleged mismatch between the Input Tax Credit (ITC) reflected in Form GSTR-2A and the ITC claimed by the petitioner in Form GSTR-3B. He contended that the impugned order was passed without conducting any inquiry regarding the genuineness of the transactions. It is further submitted that the show-cause notice and subsequent reminder notices were served upon the petitioner only through the common portal. Owing to the temporary closure of the petitioner's concern, the petitioner was not in a position to check the portal, receive and respond to the aforesaid notices, or attend the personal hearing. Therefore, the mandatory requirement of an effective personal hearing under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act has not been complied with, and the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice.
3. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with the respondent.
4. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate 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
WP No. 38619 of 2026
provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
6. 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.
7. Further, since it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to deposit 25% the disputed tax amount to the respondent, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:—
WP No. 38619 of 2026
(i) The impugned order dated 20.11.2025 is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount with 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.
8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WMP.No.43329/2026 is ordered and WMP.NO.43330/2026 is closed. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To The Deputy State Tax Officer 1 Singanallur north Circle Singanallur north Circle Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu 641 018
WP No. 38619 of 2026
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. SK WP No. 38619 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 43329 OF 2026,WMP NO. 43330 OF 2026 07-10-2026