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