BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and W.M.P.(MD).No.3897 of 2026 M/s.Jabeer Traders, Represented by its Proprietor, A.Mohamedsathik ... Petitioner Vs The Superintendent of GST and Central Excise, Lalgudi Range, Trichy II Division, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Trichy-620 001. ... Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Order in Original No.03/2025- GST dated 17.02.2024 and Summary Order in Reference No.ZD330225161762K, dated 17.02.2025 for the assessment year 2020-2021 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 and to quash the same as cryptic, barred by limitation, non- speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment orders.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Sudalai Muthu For Respondent : Mr.R.Gowri Shankar

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2024 and Summary Order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr.R.Gowri Shankar, learned counsel, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 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 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 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 voluntarily 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.

5. On the other hand, the learned Counsel 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 matter back to the respondent, 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 counsel appearing for the respondent 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 way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litiga