BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 07.01.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

& W.M.P.(MD)No.140 of 2026

Tvl Bharathi Traders

Represented by its Proprietor P. Jayakumar

GSTIN 33AVPPJ0222P1ZG

102/7, NA, Ariyalur Main Road

Kallakudi Post, Tiruchirappalli 621651.

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State Tax Officer

Lalgudi Assessment Circle

Commercial Taxes Buildings

Lalgudi, Trichy.

... 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 on the file of the respondent in GSTIN 33AVPPJ0222 P1ZG /2017-18 dated 27.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18 passed by the Respondent under section 74 of TNGST Act 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, non application of mind, illegal , arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to proceed afresh,

if at all required, only under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, after affording due opportunity of personal hearing to the Petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.Sudalai Muthu N For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 27.12.2023 passed by the 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 now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount after deducting the amount already recovered by 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 remaining 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