WP/43014/2026 of VELAN SUPER MARKET Vs THE STATE TAX OFFICER on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for the Respondent.

2. With the consent of both sides, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. This Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking to quash the Order in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No.ZD331125337291S/FY 2021-2022 dated 19.11.2025 and consequently, direct the Respondent to reconsider the matter afresh after providing a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and permitting the Petitioner to submit all supporting documents.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that upon scrutinizing the returns filed by the Petitioner for the Financial Year 2021-22, some discrepancies were noticed by the Officials. Hence, the Respondent had issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 on 22.09.2025 calling upon the Petitioner to file its reply by 21.10.2025 and thereafter, issued Reminder

Notices on 23.10.2025, 03.11.2025 & 07.11.2025. However, the Petitioner did not file any reply or objection to the Show Cause Notice. Therefore, the Respondent has passed the Order dated 19.11.2025 along with Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, confirming the tax and penalty proposed in the Show Cause Notice and directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.17,31,684/-. That apart, the Respondent has initiated the recovery proceedings by attaching the Petitioner's Bank Accounts under Section 79 of the TNGST & CGST Act, 2017.

4.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Show Cause Notice and the Impugned Order were merely uploaded on the Online GST Portal and the same were not served to the Petitioner through physical mode. The Petitioner’s Accountant who was regularly monitoring the Online GST Portal went to his native place and the Petitioner failed to monitor the Online GST Portal and thus, the Petitioner could not file any reply to the Show Cause Notice and prefer an appeal against the Impugned Order.

4.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Order passed by the Respondent is an ex-parte order since prior to passing the Impugned Order, the Petitioner was not heard by the Respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the Impugned Order suffers from a violation of the principles of natural justice.

4.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 15% of the disputed tax. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed that the Impugned Order may be quashed and the matter may be remanded back to the Respondent for fresh consideration.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Tax) appearing for the Respondent fairly submitted that since the Petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought in this Writ Petition may be considered.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate (Tax) for the Respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. According to the Petitioner, the Show Cause Notice and the Impugned Order were merely uploaded on the Online GST Portal and were not served to the Petitioner through physical mode. Further, the Petitioner’s Accountant who was regularly monitoring the Online GST Portal went to his native place and the Petitioner failed to monitor the Online GST Portal and thus, the Petitioner could not file any reply to the Show Cause Notice and prefer an appeal against the Impugned Order. Furthermore, the Respondent passed the Impugned Order without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner,

8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in Online GST 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 Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (for brevity, “CGST Act”) which are also the valid mode of service under the CGST Act, otherwise, the service of notice will not be deemed to be an effective service, rather, it would only amount to fulfilling the empty formalities.

9. Merely passing an ex-parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave the way for a 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. Thus, when there is no response from the taxpayer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing the notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, preferably by way of RPAD which would ultimately achieve the object of the CGST Act. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there has been a lack of effort in applying the available opportunities to serve notices/orders etc., effectively on the Petitioner and the Impugned Order suffers from a violation of the principles of natural justice.

10. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:

(i) The Impugned Order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Respondent is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent for fresh consideration, on condition that the Petitioner shall deposit 15% of the disputed tax, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) It is made clear that quashing of the Impugned Order will come into effect, only from the date of deposit of 15% of the disputed tax by the Petitioner.

(iii) The Petitioner is directed to file its Reply/Objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks thereafter.

(iv) On filing of such Reply/Objection by the Petitioner, the Respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the Respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

(v) So far as the attachment made in Petitioner's Bank Accounts is concerned, it is needless to state that once the Impugned Order is quashed, the order of attachment cannot survive any longer. On production of proof with regard to the payment of 15% of disputed tax by the Petitioner, the Bank concerned is directed to de-freeze the Petitioner's Bank Accounts forthwith.

11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 16-10-2026 mrr Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No To The State Tax Officer, Vadavalli Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Building, Dr.Balasundaram Road, Near RTO Office, Coimbatore Central, Coimbatore – 641 018.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. mrr W.P.No.43014 of 2026 16-10-2026