BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY & W.M.P.(MD)No.1048 of 2026 Tvl. Jaminisa Nets, Rep by its Partner, Mr. Syed Ali Mohmad Fharudheen No.2/183, New No.183/A1 New Mosque Street, Near Muslim Arts College Thiruvithancode Post, Kanniyakumari.

... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Deputy Commissioner (CT)

Appellate Authority, Tirunelveli.

2. The State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer Thuckalay-2 Circle, Kanniyakumari District.

... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent in FORM GST DRC-07 dated 17.02.2025 vide GSTIN.33AAJFJ3553C 1ZP/2020-2021 and quash the same and consequentially direct the 2nd respondent to re-open the proceedings pursuant to the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 17.02.2025 by providing another opportunity to the petitioner to produce all the documents.

For Petitioner : Ms.A.Lakshmi for M/s.Polax Legal Solutions For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 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. Aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner had filed an appeal dated 06.10.2025, however, the same was dismissed by the 1^st respondent, on the aspect of limitation, vide order dated 15.12.2025. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

5. Further, he would submit that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay remaining 15% 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 matters back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 15%

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