[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Adhiyappan Servai Construction vs The State Tax Officer on 26 February, 2026
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.(MD)No.5281 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 26.02.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.(MD)No.5281 of 2026
& WMP.(MD)Nos.4416 & 4417 of 2026
Adhiyappan Servai Construction,
Represented by Sivakumar Ramasamy,
S/o. Ramasamy, No.2/97, Othathaveedu,
Lakshmipuram, Thirumayam,
Pudukottai - 622 412.
... Petitioner
Vs.
The State Tax Officer,
Pudukottai- II Assessment Circle,
Pudukottai District.
... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of CERTIORARIFIED MANDAMUS to call for
the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the respondent
vide proceedings in GSTIN. 33EUHPR0509G1ZR/2023-2024 dated
30.07.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the
Respondent to give an opportunity of personal hearing that may be fixed
by this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 02:52:53 pm )
W.P.(MD)No.5281 of 2026
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunanidhi
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,
Addl. Govt. Pleader.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned
order passed by the respondent vide proceedings in GSTIN.
33EUHPR0509G1ZR/2023-2024 dated 30.07.2025 and also seeking for
a consequential direction, directing the respondent to give an
opportunity of personal hearing that may be fixed by this Court.
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 02:52:53 pm )
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.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to
pay 25% 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 25%
of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 02:52:53 pm )
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the
learned Government Advocate for the respondent and also 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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 02:52:53 pm )
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.
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 willing to pay 25% 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 30.07.2025 passed by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 02:52:53 pm )
respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 30.07.2025 is set
aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for
fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner
shall pay 25% 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
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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 02:52:53 pm )
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed
of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
also closed.
26.02.2026
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
vsm
To
The State Tax Officer,
Pudukottai- II Assessment Circle,
Pudukottai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 02:52:53 pm )
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.,
vsm
& WMP.(MD)Nos.4416 & 4417 of 2026
26.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/03/2026 02:52:53 pm )
