SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 5981

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C. SARAVANAN
MOHANAN GNANSEKAR – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE TAX OFFICER – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.No.28321 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 29.01.2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.28321 of 2023

and

W.M.P.Nos.27842 and 27843 of 2023

Mr.Mohanan Gnansekar

Proprietor of M/s.Hind Aluminium Company,

SF No.554/3D2, Begapalli Village,

Nallur Panchayat, Hosur Taluk

Krishnagiri District,

Hosur-635 121. ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State Tax Officer,

Hosur (North-1) Assessment Circle,

Office of the Assistant Commissioner,

Hosur North, I Assessment Circle,

Integrated Commercial Taxes Building

Second Floor,

Hosur – 635 109.

2. The Principal Secretary / Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Ezhilgam, Chepauk

Chennai-600 005. ... Respondents

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for

issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the impugned

proceedings of the first respondent in GSTIN:33AMKPG7664E1Z1/2017-18

dated 29.08.2023 and the consequential orders passed under section 74 in

Reference No.ZD3308231649732 dated 29.08.2023 and the “ Summary of

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 03:53:25 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.No.28321 of 2023

the Order” passed in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.08.2023 issued in

Reference No.ZD3308231649732 and quash all the impugned proceedings as

passed contrary to the provisions of the CGST Act, 2017 and TNGST Act,

2017 and also passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and

further direct the first respondent or any other Officer assigned by the second

respondent to consider the objections dated 17.08.2023 and the documents

filed by the petitioner in a fair and judious manner and pass a fresh

assessment order in accordance with law after granting reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner including cross examination and personal

hearing to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar

For Respondents : Ms.Amirtha Poonkodi Dinakaran,

Government Advocate

***************

O R D E R

This is the second round of litigation before this Court.

2. The petitioner is before this Court against the impugned order

dated 29.08.2023 issued in Form GST DRC-07 passed for the tax period

2017-2018, by which the proposal in the Show Cause Notice dated

02.08.2023 in DRC-01 has been confirmed against the petitioner.

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 03:53:25 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.28321 of 2023

3. The impugned order was preceded with a reminder dated

02.08.2023 and an intimation dated 17.08.2023 issued by the office of the

respondent, wherein a specific timeline was prescribed for filing a reply to

the Show Cause Notice and personal hearing.

4. The timeline fixed in the aforesaid intimation dated 17.08.2023

is as below:-

Sr. Description Particulars

No.

1. Date by which reply has to be submitted 24/08/2023

2. Date of Personal Hearing 17/08/2023

3. Time of Personal Hearing 16:07

4. Venue where Personal Hearing will be held Office of the Asst

Commissioner (ST) Hosur.

5. On a reading of the timeline mentioned in the aforesaid Notice

dated 17.08.2023, it is clear that there is a gross violation of the Principles of

Natural Justice. It is unexplicable as to how the date fixed for submission of

reply to the Show Cause Notice is subsequent to the date filed for personal

hearing on 17.08.2023 which is also fixed on the same day of issuance of

such reminder notice.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/02/2026 03:53:25 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.28321 of 2023

6. The entire procedure adopted by the Respondent in passing the

assessment order is irregular and warrants interference by this Court.

7. Considering the same, the impugned order is quashed and the

case is remitted back to the respondents to pass a fresh order on merits after

affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

8. The respondent shall fix a personal hearing, on which date the

petitioner shall appear before the respondent and thereafter the respondent

shall proceed to pass appropriate orders on merits as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of three months from the dat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top