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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36185

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy, J
Tvl.G.Soundarapandian TALC Gurusamy Nadar Co., Rep. by its Partner S.Rajarethinam – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Aranthangi Assessment Circle, Pudukkottai District – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD) No.7458 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.R.D.Ganesan
For the Respondents: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

Web portal notice upload without physical service violates natural justice; fresh opportunity granted on condition.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an ex parte GST assessment order dated 28.10.2025 passed under Article 226, citing discrepancies in GSTR-1, GSTR-3B, and GSTR-2A returns without personal hearing due to notices uploaded only on the web portal, violating natural justice principles. The court found that physical service was absent, leading to non-response. The court granted conditional relief by remitting the matter for fresh consideration upon partial payment. Issues framed included validity of web portal notices without physical service and entitlement to hearing. Ratio: Mere uploading of notices on portal insufficient without physical service; opportunity must be granted to ensure natural justice. Writ petition allowed; impugned order set aside upon payment of 25% disputed tax; matter remitted for fresh orders.

Table of Content
1. challenges ex parte gst order due to gstr discrepancies. (Para 1 , 2)
2. no physical notice service caused non-response. (Para 3)
3. grants conditional remand for fresh hearing. (Para 4)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

28.10.2025.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that there is discrepancy between GSTR-1, GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity when the show cause notice and personal hearing notices were issued. Accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed ex parte.

3. It is the contention of the petitioner that since the show cause notice as well as the personal hearing notices were uploaded on the web portal and no physical service of the notices was effected, the petitioner failed to respond to the same and therefore, the impugned ex parte order came to be passed.

4. This Court, taking into account the said submission, is of the view that one more opportunity can be granted to the petitioner, however, on condition that the petitioner pays 25% of the disputed tax amount. This Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:

i. The petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a web copy of this order.

ii. Upon such payment, the impugned order dated 28.10.2025 shall stand set aside and the matter shall stand remitted back to the file of the respondent.

iii.The petitioner shall appear before the respondent without fail and file a reply and produce such documentary evidence in support of his claim.

iv. The respondent shall pass fresh orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

v. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top