Madras High Court
WP/38698/2026 of M/S. WEBERS Vs The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 7 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 38698 of 2026
and
W.M.P.No.43432 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012120752026}
M/s. Webers
Rep by its Proprietor Mr Ragupathy,
S/o. Dharmalingam,
GSTIN 33BBMPR9440M2ZY
No.15/8C, Vignesh Apartments,
Bala Kumaran Nagar Part-A,
Kolathur, Chennai – 600 099.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer
Surapattu Circle, Avadi Zone,
Tiruvallur Division.
2. The Deputy State Tax Officer -I,
Surapattu Assessment Circle.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the impugned ex-parte order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the first respondent vide Order No.ZD331225216395M, and quash the same as being violative of the principles of natural justice, and consequently direct the second respondent to lift the attachment of the petitioner’s bank accounts maintained with ICICI Bank bearing A/c Nos. 035001546156 and 027505008389, and restore the proceedings to the stage of adjudication by affording the petitioner an opportunity to file his objections and produce the relevant documents and thereafter pass fresh orders after affording a personal hearing.
For Petitioner(s) :
Mr.Arunkumar.S
For Respondent(s) :
Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran,
Government Advocate (T)
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 order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the first respondent.
2. Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 respondents under the a “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 respondents without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and the bank accounts of the petitioner were also freezed. Hence, the petitioner preferred a statutory appeal after making the requisite pre-deosit, however, the said appeal was rejected on the ground of limitation. Since this Court in a writ petition filed by the petitioner in W.P.No.33402 of 2026 had granted liberty to the petitioner to challenge the ex-parte order already passed by the first respondent, the petitioner is before this Court seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner undertakes to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, less the amount already paid to the respondents and also made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondents by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents have 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 requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondents, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount less the amount already paid to the respondents.
6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and 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 of 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 is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount after deducting the amount, if any already paid, to the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 15.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount less the amount already paid, to the respondents 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 attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the Bank concerned is directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, upon production of the proof of payment along with a copy of this order by the petitioner and permit them to operate the accounts normally.
(iii) 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.
(iv) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondents 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. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition in W.M.P.No.43432 of 2026 is ordered as prayed for. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order : Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No rap To
1. The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Surapattu Circle, Avadi Zone, Tiruvallur Division.
2. The Deputy State Tax Officer -I, Surapattu Assessment Circle.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. rap WP No. 38698 of 2026 07-10-2026