BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 11.12.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

& W.M.P.(MD)No.28125 of 2025

Karur Taluk Lorry Owners Association,

represented by its President,

K.Raju

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Commercial Tax Officer,

Karur-3 Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Building,

Karur.

... Respondent

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in the impugned order in GST DRC 07 Ref.No.ZD3302251267171, 13.02.2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021 issued by the respondent

and quash the same as it is without jurisdiction.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar

For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar,

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the respondent.

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

3. By consent of both 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 already uploaded three notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. 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 the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed.

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 wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.

10. 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. T