WP/42284/2026 of Tvl MH Traders Vs The Assistant Commissioenr (ST) on 14 October 2026

Order

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the first respondent.

2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the first respondent. 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 respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notice, he failed to file his reply within the time. Later, the petitioner was informed that the impugned order dated 13.12.2025 was uploaded in the portal. Since the previous consultant did not co- operate with the petitioner’s office, the petitioner changed their consultancy office and requested to take further legal action against the impugned order. The new consultant office took charge in the month of January 2026 and due to lack of knowledge in dealing with the GST portal, the petitioner was not aware of the impugned proceedings uploaded in the portal. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:19 pm )

WP No. 42284 of 2026

opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. To that effect, he has also made an endorsement in the Court bundle. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the first respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) appearing for the first respondent would submit that the first respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, she 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 first respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader (T) for the first respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:19 pm )

WP No. 42284 of 2026

7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice and impugned order 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 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.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:19 pm )

WP No. 42284 of 2026

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 petitioner that due to the dispute between the petitioner and the consultant, the petitioner was not in a position to file a detailed reply along with documents. Further, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the first respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 13.12.2025 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned order dated 13.12.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the first respondent within a period of four (4) 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. In the event, any amount is already recovered, the petitioner is granted liberty to

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:19 pm )

WP No. 42284 of 2026

adjust the said amount while making payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two 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.

(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 second respondent-Bank is directed to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon proof of payment of the said amount.

11. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. W.M.P.No.47507 of 2026 filed to dispense with the production of the original impugned order dated 13.12.2025, is ordered. Consequently, the connected W.M.P.No.47514 of 2026 is also closed. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No RSI

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:19 pm )

WP No. 42284 of 2026

To

1. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Thiruverkadu assessment circle, Commercial Taxes Building, No.4/109, Bangalore Highway, Nazarathpet, Chennai – 123.

2. The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Saidapet branch, 54, Sheshachalam Subramania Mudali Street, Saidapet, Chennai - 15.

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:19 pm )

WP No. 42284 of 2026

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. RSI WP No. 42284 of 2026 AND WMP NO. 47507 OF 2026,WMP NO. 47514 OF 2026 14-10-2026

( Uploaded on: 29/10/2026 04:06:19 pm )