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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 11970

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
TVL SRI JEYAMURUGAN BUILDING – Appellant
Versus
THE COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCI – Respondent



##PAGE1##

W.P.(MD)No.3221 of 2026

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 05.02.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY

W.P.(MD)No.3221 of 2026

& W.M.P(MD)No.2648 of 2026

Tvl Sri Jeyamurugan Building Promoters

Rep. by its Proprietor Kani Manoharan

S/o Kani Pandian

2117-1, Jawaharlal Nehru Road

Sivakasi, Virudhunagar District - 626 123.

... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes,

O/o The Principal and Special Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Ezhilagam, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005

2. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1/The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer

Sivakasi - 1 Assessment Circle

Commercial Taxes Building

No.174-A, NGO Colony

Satchiyapuram, Sivakasi

Virudhunagar District - 626 124

... Respondent

Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for records pertaining to

impugned order of the 2nd Respondent in Ref.No.ZD330124158173S/

2021-22 dated 31.01.2024 and quash the same.

1/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/02/2026 01:17:26 pm )

##PAGE2##

W.P.(MD)No.3221 of 2026

For Petitioner : Mr.Veeramanikandan R

For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, AGP

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

dated 31.01.2024 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 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

2/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/02/2026 01:17:26 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.(MD)No.3221 of 2026

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. He

would also request this Court to lift the attachment order for making

payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents.

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.

3/9

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/02/2026 01:17:26 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.(MD)No.3221 of 2026

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

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top