[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
M/S.Eric Bio Solutions vs The Deputy State Tax Officer on 19 February, 2026
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
.W.P.(MD) No.4608 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.02.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.(MD)No.4608 of 2026
and
W.M.P.(MD).No.3881 of 2026
M/s.Eric Bio Solutions,
Represented by its Managing Partner,
M.K.Asha ... Petitioner
Vs
The Deputy State Tax Officer-1,
Tamil Nadu Commercial Tax Department,
Madurai Rural East Assessment Circle,
Madurai. ... Respondent
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent vide
his records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent
vide his order in GSTIN: GSTIN: 33AAGFE2311L1ZS / 2021-22, dated
22.12.2025 and quash the same as it is illegal and in gross violation of
principles of natural justice and further direct the respondent to redo the
assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing as
per the provisions of the GST Act.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
.W.P.(MD) No.4608 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Naveenkumar
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order
dated 22.12.2025 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader,
takes notice on behalf of the 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 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, this petition has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is voluntarily
willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondent. Hence,
he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present
their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader
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 10% of
the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the
materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
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, inspite of
the fact that 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 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
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 is a lack of opportunities being
provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.
10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner is voluntarily 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 22.12.2025
passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following
order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 22.12.2025 is set
aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for
fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner
shall pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the
respondent within a period of four weeks from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
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.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No
costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.
19.02.2026
TSG
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
To
The Deputy State Tax Officer-1,
Tamil Nadu Commercial Tax Department,
Madurai Rural East Assessment Circle,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
TSG
19.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/02/2026 12:59:53 pm )
