##PAGE1##

WP No. 2998 of 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 29-01-2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN

WP No. 2998 of 2026

and

WMP.Nos.3363 & 3364 of 2026

M/s.R.V EXPORTS

Represented by its Partner,

Mr.B.Vijayakumar Ranka,

SF No.102, Tharakadu,

Murungapalayam 3rd Street End,

Gandhi Nagar, Tiruppur 641 603.

..Petitioner(s)

Vs

The Assistant commissioner (ST)(FAC)

Tiruppur (North)-1 Circle

Tiruppur.

..Respondent(s)

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

issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the impugned proceedings of the

Respondent in GSTIN: 33AAGFR5636P1ZP/2021-22, culminating in the

Assessment Order dated 10.11.2025, passed under Section 73 of the

CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, the connected Summary of Order in Form GST

DRC-07 bearing Reference No.ZD331125160636J dated 10.11.2025 and to

quash all the impugned proceedings as passed contrary to the provisions of the

CGST/TNGST Act, 2017, and against the principles of natural justice and to

render justice.

__________

Page1 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 04:14:52 pm )

WP No. 2998 of 2026

For Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajkumar P

For Respondent(s): Mr.TNC.Kaushik

Additional Government Pleader

ORDER

Mr.TNC.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice

for the Respondent.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the time of admission with

the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional

Government Pleader for the Respondent.

3. In this Writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order

dated 10.11.2025 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the respective

GST Enactments. By the said impugned order, the demand proposed in the

Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 05.06.2025 has been

confirmed.

4. The petitioner was required to respond to the aforesaid notice by

05.06.2025. However, the petitioner failed to submit a reply within the

stipulated time. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted a response only on

01.11.2025, after three reminders dated 11.09.2025, 16.10.2025 and 30.10.2025.

__________

Page2 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 04:14:52 pm )

WP No. 2998 of 2026

5. The reply was filed in Form DRC – 06 dated 01.11.2025. The relevant

portion of the reply dated 01.11.2025 is extracted hereunder:-

“ Reply

we have filed GSTR 1 and GSTR 3B correctly from our side,

some of our suppliers are not filed GST relating to the year, so we

are not liable to pay the amount ….”

6. The case of the petitioner is that, in the third reminder dated

30.10.2025, the matter was fixed for personal hearing on 10.11.2025 at

11.30am. On the very same day, the respondent passed the impugned order.

7. Reference was made to the recent decision of this Court rendered in

Urbanclap Technologies India Private Limited vs. State Tax Officer and

others dated 31.08.2020 in W.P.Nos.9270, 9275 and 9287 of 2020. Further

reference was made to paragraph No. 4 of the said decision, wherein reliance

was placed on an earlier judgment of this Court in S.Velu Palandar v. Deputy

Commercial Tax Officer (29 STC 151)

8. In the said decision, it was held that, in all fairness, the Assessing

Officer ought to have waited until the end of the working day on which the

personal hearing was fixed before finalizing the assessment.

9. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent.

__________

Page3 of 7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/02/2026 04:14:52 pm )

WP No. 2998 of 2026

10. In view of the subsequent order passed on the strength of the reply

dated 01.11.2025, as extracted above, no different decision would arise. The

petitioner’s reply is sketchy and does not inspire any confidence of disclose any

formidable defence against the proposal contained in the Show Cause Notice in

Form GST DRC – 01 dated 05.06.2025. Therefore, I do not find any reason to

remit the case back without imposing th