BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 02.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

& W.M.P.(MD)Nos.29097 & 29098 of 2025

M/s. Chendur Pandi Engineering Works

Represented by its Proprietor, Balaganesan

S/o. Sendurpandi

No. 2/22C, North Street,

Muthaiahpuram, Tuticorin.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Deputy Commissioner (GST)

Madurai camp at Tirunelveli

Ground Floor, C.T. Buildings,

A.R. Line Road, Tirunelveli-627002.

2. State Tax Officer /Commercial Tax Officer

State Tax Commercial Tax Office

Tuticorin -II, Assessment Circle,

No.6R, North Cotton Road

Thoothukudi, Tuticorin.

Tamil Nadu-628001.

... Respondents

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 2^nd respondent in Order No. ZD330723138242P/

2019-2020/ 31.07.2023/ GSTIN 33AHAPS4313F1ZS and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.Muthu Kumar Raja S For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the 2^nd respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

8. 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.

9. 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