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) 36193

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
M/s.Immanuvel – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (ST) – Respondent
W.M.P.(MD) No.7473 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Petitioner: Mr.S.Karunakar
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

Ex parte GST order set aside; fresh opportunity granted on 25% tax pre-deposit due to non-service of notices.

Headnote:The petitioner challenged an ex parte GST assessment order passed due to failure to respond to notices uploaded on the web portal. The court noted the petitioner's lack of computer knowledge and reliance on an accountant who missed the notices. The court found that an additional opportunity was warranted on condition of pre-deposit. The key issue was whether deemed service via web portal justified the ex parte order given the petitioner's circumstances. The ratio decidendi emphasized granting a fresh hearing upon partial tax payment to ensure natural justice. The writ petition was allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remitted for fresh orders after petitioner pays 25% disputed tax and participates in proceedings.

Table of Content
1. ex parte gst order due to non-response to notices. (Para 2)
2. petitioner unaware of web portal notices. (Para 3)
3. fresh opportunity on 25% tax pre-deposit. (Para 4)

O R D E R

This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated

04.11.2025.

2. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that on verification of GSTR-3B, when there were variations in the rate of tax and a requirement for documents with reference to the exempted turnover, 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 was unaware of the same. The petitioner is not conversant with computers and had entrusted the work of filing returns and other GST matters to a part-time accountant. However, since the said accountant failed to notice the same, the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and therefore did not respond to the notices and participate in the proceedings.

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 04.11.2025 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