WP/41524/2026 of DURAI DEVANAND Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer on 13 October 2026

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 29.04.2024 and 25.11.2025 passed by the 1st respondent.

2. Mr.I.Dinesh, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are 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 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 respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, these petitions have been filed.

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

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) 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.

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 orders 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.

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. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% in each case, of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 29.04.2024 and 25.11.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned orders dated 29.04.2024 and 25.11.2025 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay

25% of disputed tax amount in each case 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 With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, WMP.Nos.46617 and 46604/2026 are ordered and WMP.No.46620 and 46609/2026 are closed. 16-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No SK To Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Guindy South-II Chennai South Tamil Nadu

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. SK WP No. 41524 of 2026 16-10-2026