BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.3602 & 3603 of 2026 M.Manikandan, Works Contractor, 33CQHPM1542G1Z3, 1/21/A, Kaspa Santhaipettai, Mayanur, Krishnarayapuram Taluk, Karur – 639 108. ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Deputy State Officer – 1, Kulithalai Assessment Circle, Commercial Tax Building, Karur.

2.The Deputy Commissioner (GST – Appeal), Commercial Tax Building, Erode. ... Respondents 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 in GSTIN 33CQHPM1542G1Z3/2019-20 dated 16.04.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of TNGST Act, 2017 and consequential rejection order ARN AD330824013242K dated 09.04.2025 issued by the second respondent in Form GST APL-02 and to quash the both as cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the second respondent to pass order afresh after affording opportunity of personal hearing as contemplated under Section

75(4) of the TNGST Act, 2017.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Karunakar For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the impugned order in GSTIN 33CQHPM1542G1Z3/2019-20 dated 16.04.2024 passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of TNGST Act, 2017 and consequential rejection order ARN AD330824013242K dated 09.04.2025 issued by the second respondent in Form GST APL-02.

2.Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, 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 assessment order came to be passed by the first respondent dated 16.04.2024 without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Further, he would submit that against the impugned assessment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the second respondent with a delay of 28 days, however, since no condone delay petition was annexed, the said appeal came to be rejected vide order dated 09.04.2025. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

4.Further, he would submit that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay 15% of the disputed tax amount additionally, to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondents by setting aside the impugned orders.

5.On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the first 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 assessment order dated 16.04.2024. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the first respondent, subject to the payment of additional 15% 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 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 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