Madras High Court
WP/42768/2026 of Sri Periyandavar Blue Metals Vs Commercial Tax Officer /State Tax Officer (Inspect on 16 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
WP No. 42768 of 2026
and
WMP Nos. 48080, 48082 & 48084 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012503932026}
Sri Periyandavar Blue Metals,
Rep by its Partner Mr A Dhanusu
No.106/1b,2b,3b,10, Vanur Taluk,
Main Road, Nemili Village,
Viluppuram 604 304,
Tamil Nadu, India
...Petitioner(s)
Vs
1. Commercial Tax Officer /State Tax Officer (Inspection-IV)
Cuddalore Assessment Circle,
No.1, Vallalar Nagar,
Manjakuppam, Cuddalore 607001,
Tamil Nadu, India.
2. Deputy State Tax Officer /GST Inspector Tindivanam Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Collectors Mater Plan Complex, Viluppuram 605 602, Tamil Nadu, India.
3. The Branch Manager,
City Union Bank Limited,
667, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Villurpuram 605602,Tamil Nadu, India.
...Respondent(s)
PRAYER: The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the file of the First Respondent and quash the Impugned Order under section 74 of the Tamil Nadu
Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017
including the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 30.06.2026
and having Reference Number ZD330626289960X and its annexure dated 30.06.2026 in GSTIN 33ADVFS9420L1ZD passed by the First Respondent for FY 2021-22, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
For Petitioner(s):
Ms.K.Kumudham Barathi
For Respondent(s):
Mr.B.Sivaraman,
Government Advocate(Tax)
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 30.06.2026 passed by the first respondent.
2. Mr.B.Sivaraman, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of respondents 1 & 2. 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 first respondent 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 first respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. Further, she would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, she 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 respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the respondents 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. Hence, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
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. That apart, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 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 30.06.2026 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 30.06.2026 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 and 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 receipt of copy of this order.
(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.
(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that 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 concerned Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, upon production of the proof of payment of the said amount along with a copy of this order by the petitioner and permit them to operate the accounts normally. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No VM To:-
1. Commercial Tax Officer /State Tax Officer (Inspection-IV) Cuddalore Assessment Circle, No.1, Vallalar Nagar, Manjakuppam, Cuddalore 607001, Tamil Nadu, India.
2. Deputy State Tax Officer /GST Inspector Tindivanam Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Collectors Mater Plan Complex, Viluppuram 605602, Tamil Nadu, India.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. VM WP No. 42768 of 2026 16-10-2026