BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 22.01.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY & W.M.P(MD)Nos.1201 & 1203 of 2026 Tvl.Sri Balaji Agencies Represented by its Proprietor S.Balakumar No.5/40 Bommiah Compound Kappalur Main Road Madurai District 625 008 ... Petitioner in both petitions Vs.

The Deputy State Tax Officer 2 Thiruparankundram Assessment Circle Commercial Taxes Buildings Dr. Thangaraj Salai Madurai District 625 020 ... Respondents in both petitions Common Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Respondent vide his proceedings in GSTIN 33AYNPB5430C1ZZ/ 2019-20, dated 14.08.2024 and quash the same as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and further direct the Respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing me an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.

calling for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the Respondent vide his proceedings in GSTIN.33AYNPB5430C1ZZ/ 2020-21, dated 14.08.2024 and quash the same as it is illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of Principles of Natural Justice and further direct the Respondent to re-do the assessment afresh after providing petitioner an opportunity of Personal Hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act For Petitioner in both cases : Mr.A. Satheesh murugan For Respondent in both cases : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 14.08.2024 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 petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, 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 orders came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

Therefore, these petitions have been filed.

5. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent in each case. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned orders.

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 orders. 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 cases 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, th