Madras High Court
WP/39743/2026 of J KARTHIK Vs Deputy State Tax officer-1 on 26 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP Nos.39743, 39744 and 39745 of 2026
and WMP Nos.44651, 44657, and 44654 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012110172026}
1. J Karthik
Old No 16 New No. 62 Plot No.28 Vaidyanathan Street Tondiarpet Chennai-600 081
2. K Jagannathan
Old No 16 New No 62 Plot No 28 Vaidyanathan Street Tondiarpet chennai
3. Umadevi R
Old No 16 New No 62 Plot No 28 Vaidyanathan Street Tondiarpet Chennai
4. Ramya J
All the above are the legal heirs of
Late.J.Amuthavalli
Representing Amutha Metal Industries
Old No 16 New No 62 Plot No 28 Vaidyanathan Street Tondiarpet chennai-600 081
..Petitioner(s) in all W.Ps.
Vs
1. The Deputy State Tax officer-1
Tondiarpet Assessment Circle
Integrated Commercial Taxes Offices Building Chennai North Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road Chennai-600 003
2. The Recovery Officer Deputy Commissioner ST
North II Zone
Room No.510 5th Floor Intergrated Commercial Taxes Officers Building No.32 Elephant Gate Bridge Road Chennai
..Respondent(s)
WP No. 39743 of 2026
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned rectification order of the first respondent passed in Ref.No.
ZD330224034729G in GSTIN/33ARHPA1055B1ZP dated 07-02-2024 and quash the same WP No. 39744 of 2026
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Ref. No. ZD330125228658D in GSTIN/33ARHPA1055B1ZP for the year 2020-2021 dated 25-01-2025 and quash the same WP No. 39745 of 2026
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Ref. No. ZD3309230438944
in GSTIN/33ARHPA1055B1ZP dated 08.09.2023 for the year 2020-21 and quash the same For Petitioner(s):
in all W.Ps.
Mr. Jawahar Surya P
For Respondent(s):
in all W.Ps.
Mr. I. Dinesh Kumar
Additional Government Pleader
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.
COMMON ORDER
These Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order dated 07.02.2024, 25.01.2025 and 08.09.2023, respectively passed by the first respondent.
2. Mr. I. Dinesh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader (T) takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in all the cases, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioners were not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the first respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners. Therefore, these petitions have been filed.
4. Further, the learned counsel would submit that the petitioners are voluntarily willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount in respect of each assessment order, to the first respondent. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the Court bundles. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioners to present their case before the first respondent by setting aside the impugned orders.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) appearing for the respondents would submit that the first respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioners failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioners prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matters back to the first respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioners in respect of each assessment order.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) for the respondents 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 petitioners, they were 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 petitioners 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, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the first respondent in respect of the each assessment order. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 07.02.2024, 25.01.2025 and 08.09.2023, passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 07.02.2024, 25.01.2025 and 08.09.2023, are set aside and the matters are remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent in respect of each assessment order, within a period of four
(4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned orders will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount. In the event, any amount is already recovered/paid, the petitioners are granted liberty to adjust the said amount while making payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
(ii) The petitioners 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 petitioners, the first 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.
10. With the above directions, these Writ Petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 26-10-2026 Asi To
1. The Deputy State Tax officer-1 Tondiarpet Assessment circle Integrated Commercial Taxes Offices Building Chennai North Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road Chennai-600 003
3. The Recovery Officer Deputy Commissioner ST North II Zone Room No.510 5th Floor Integrated Commercial Taxes Officers Building No.32 Elephant Gate Bridge Road Chennai
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. Asi WP Nos.39743, 39744 and 39745 of 2026 and WMP Nos.44651, 44657, and 44654 of 2026 26-10-2026