BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 09.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY & W.M.P.(MD)Nos.557, 559 & 560 of 2026 M/s. Sathiah Ramesh GSTIN 33ANEPR0121Q1ZZ Represented by its Proprietor, S. Ramesh No.115/95, North 4th Street Pudukkottai - 622 001.

... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Deputy Commissioner (State Tax)

Pudukkottai Zone.

2. The State Tax Officer Pudukkottai - I Assessment Circle Commercial Taxes Department Pudukkottai District.

3. The Divisional Engineer Highways and Rural Works Department Panagal Building, Anna Salai East Gate Thanjavur - 613 001.

4. The Branch Manager Corporation Bank Door No. 1146, Avudayarkoil Road Kottaipattinam P.O., Pudukkottai - 641 619.

... Respondents Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the adjudication order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the 2nd Respondent in Form GST DRC-07, Reference No. GSTIN 33ANEPR0121Q1ZZ/2021-22, for the financial year 2021-22, together with all connected proceedings including Form GST DRC-13 dated 13.11.2025 and Form GST DRC-09 dated 10.12.2025, to the extent they relate to FY 2021-22, and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary, non-speaking and violative of principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. Further direct the 2nd Respondent to proceed with the matter afresh and pass a fresh adjudication order in accordance with law, after granting the petitioner a reasonable and effective opportunity of personal hearing to submit objections, considering all documentary evidences, reconciliation statements, and statutory compliance For Petitioner : Mr.Maharajan R For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP for R1 to R3

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3.

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 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 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, co