BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 13.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and W.M.P.(MD).No.3488 of 2026 Tvl.SPR Enterprises, represented by its Proprietor, Tamil Selvan ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Melur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai-625 020.

2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Melur Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Dr.Thangaraj Salai, Madurai-625 020. ... Respondents 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 first respondent vide his proceedings in GSTIN : 33AWQPT1180Q1ZQ / 2023-24, dated 16.12.2024 and its consequential summary order passed by the second respondent bearing Reference No.ZD3312241627787 Tax Period : JAN 2024-JAN 2024, F.Y.: 2023-2024, dated 19.12.2024 and quash the same as illegal, without jurisdiction and in gross violation of principles of natural justice and further direct the respondents to re-do the assessment afresh after providing an opportunity of personal hearing as per the provisions of the GST Act.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Satheesh Murugan For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.12.2024 and its consequential summary order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the second respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondents 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 second respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay

25% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondents. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondents by setting aside the impugned order.

5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents 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 respondents, subject to the payment of 25%

of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

7. 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.

8. 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