Madras High Court
WP/41766/2026 of M/S.TVL SHARP CONSTRUCTION Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) 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 No. 41766 of 2026
CNR:{HCMA012056692026}
AND
WMP NO. 46878 & 46882 OF 2026
M/s.Tvl Sharp Construction ,
Represented by its Managing Partner Jagan, S/o.Late Subramanian, (GSTIN
33ACHFS157M1ZV)
1ST Floor, No.1/7-A, Jeeva Nagar,
opposite railway station, hosur,
krishnagiri District - 635109.
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Hosur (South)-I Assessment Circle,
office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, Hosur, krishnagiri, Tamilnadu - 635109.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records culminating in the impugned order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing reference No.ZD330425171382K and GSTIN 33AHFS1571M1ZV/2023-24 dated 23.04.2025 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the tamilnadu goods and services tax act, 2017 for the tax period 2023-24 and quash the same and consequently forbear the respondent from in any manner enforcing or recovering the demand of Rs.12,49,209 (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Forty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred and Nine only) confirmed therein
For Petitioner(s):
Mr.Manikandan B
For Respondent(s):
Mr.I.Dinesh, AGP
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 order dated 23.04.2025 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.I.Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner had failed to view the portal, they were not aware of the said notices, due to which, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed.
5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel 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 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.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
8. 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.
9. 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 no response from the petitioner 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.
10. 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 lack of efforts in exploring the available opportunities to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively on the petitioner.
11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% 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 23.04.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 23.04.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the 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, the miscellaneous petition in WMP.NO.46882 of 2026 is closed.
The miscellaneous petition in WMP.No.46878 of 2026, which has been filed to dispense with the production of original assessment order, is ordered. 26-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No nsa To The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Hosur (South)-I Assessment Circle, office of the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Commercial Taxes Department, Hosur, krishnagiri, Tamilnadu - 635109.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. nsa WP No. 41766 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 46878 OF 2026,WMP NO. 46882 OF 2026 26-10-2026