WP/43079/2026 of Traxon Logistics Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) on 16 October 2026

ORDER

Mr.R.Sethu Prabakaran, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for the 1st 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 dated 09.10.2023 bearing Ref.No.GSTIN 33APCPS9944J2ZC/2017-18

and the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 dated 09.10.2023 bearing Reference No.ZD331023042555U passed by the 1st Respondent.

4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that upon scrutinizing the returns filed by the Petitioner, it was found that there is a mismatch between Form GSTR-1 and Form GSTR-3B. Hence, the 1st Respondent issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 on 08.08.2023 and thereafter, issued a Reminder Notice dated 16.09.2023, calling upon the Petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 25.09.2023 and submit a reply. However, the Petitioner neither filed any Reply/Objection to the Show Cause Notice nor appeared for personal hearing. Therefore, the 1st Respondent has passed the Assessment Order dated 09.10.2023 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.2,49,743/-. That apart, the 1st Respondent has issued a Notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 17.02.2026 to the Branch Manager of all banks, attaching the Petitioner’s Bank Accounts under Section 79 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.

4.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Show Cause Notice, Reminder Notice and the impugned Assessment Order were merely uploaded in “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the Online GST Portal and the same were not served to the Petitioner through physical mode. Therefore, the Petitioner was unable to file any Reply/Objection to the Show Cause Notice, appear for personal hearing and prefer an Appeal against the impugned Assessment Order.

4.2. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also submitted that the Assessment Order passed by the 1st Respondent is an ex-parte order since prior to the passing of Assessment Order, the Petitioner was not heard by the 1st Respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the impugned Assessment Order suffers from a violation of the principles of natural justice.

4.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that pursuant to the Assessment Order, the 1st Respondent has initiated recovery proceedings against the Petitioner, whereby, entire disputed tax has already been recovered from the Petitioner. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed this Court to quash the impugned Assessment Order and remand the case back to the 1st Respondent for fresh consideration.

5. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st Respondent fairly submitted that since it is stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the entire disputed tax has already been recovered from the Petitioner, subject to the verification of the said statement, 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 1st Respondent and perused the materials available on record.

7. According to the Petitioner, the Show Cause Notice, Reminder Notice and the impugned Assessment Order were merely uploaded in “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the Online GST Portal and were not served to the Petitioner through physical mode. Consequently, the Petitioner was unable to file any Reply/Objection to the Show Cause Notice, attend the personal hearing and prefer an Appeal against the impugned Assessment Order. Furthermore, the 1st Respondent passed the Assessment 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 Assessment Order suffers from a violation of the principles of natural justice.

10. Considering the fact that the entire disputed tax has already been recovered from the Petitioner, this Court is inclined to issue the following directions:

(i) The impugned Assessment Order dated 09.10.2023 and the Summary of the Order in GST DRC-07 dated 09.10.2023 passed by the 1st Respondent are quashed and the case is remanded back to the 1st Respondent for fresh consideration, on condition that the Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Principal Government Naturopathy

Medical College and Hospital, Chennai bearing Account No.7883022723, IFSC Code: IDIB000M157, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

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

(iii) On filing of such Reply/Objection by the Petitioner, the 1st Respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner. Thereafter, the 1st Respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

(iv) So far as the attachment made in Petitioner’s Bank Accounts is concerned, it is needless to state that once the impugned Assessment Order is quashed, the order of attachment cannot survive any longer. The concerned Banks i.e., Respondents 2 to 4 are directed to de-freeze the Petitioner’s Bank Accounts forthwith, upon production of proof of such payment along with copy of order of this Court.

11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 16-10-2026 mrr Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking Order

To

1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Broadway Assessment Circle, Station: No.32, Integrated Commercial Taxes Office Complex, Room No.304, 3rd Floor, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 003.

2. The Manager, Axis Bank, IFSC: UTIB0000424, George Town Branch, UTI House, 29, Rajaji Salai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 001.

3. The Manager, Canara Bank, IFSC: CNRB0000913, New No.257, Old No.125, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 001.

4. The Manager, HDFC Bank, IFSC: HDFC0000166, No.3, McDowell House, 2nd Line Beach, Parrys Corner, Chennai, Tamil Nadu – 600 001.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. mrr W.P.No.43079 of 2026 16-10-2026