Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 41473
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ, J
The Maark Trendz – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (ST) ( FAC) – Respondent
WMP Nos.18018 and 18019 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R Anish Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik Additional Government Pleader (Tax)
Proper service and reasonable opportunity are pre-requisites before finalizing GST assessment; remand with 10 percent pre-deposit allowed when service is portal-only.
Headnote:{"first_paragraph": "The petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging an assessment order under GST for FY 2021-22. Petitioner, a furniture manufacturer, contends that notices and orders were merely uploaded on the portal without proper service. Court finds that the petitioner had not filed any reply to the show cause notice but is willing to pay 10 percent of disputed taxes and seeks a fresh opportunity.", "second_paragraph": "Main issue is whether the assessment order should be set aside for improper service and lack of opportunity. Ratio: When service is only via portal and taxpayer remains unaware, a conditional remand with 10 percent pre-deposit is appropriate.", "last_paragraph": "Writ petition disposed of; impugned order set aside subject to payment of 10 percent disputed taxes within four weeks; entire exercise to be completed within four weeks; matter remanded for fresh consideration."}
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts of the case and procedural history (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments and willingness to pay pre-deposit (Para 4) |
| 3. directions and final disposition (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated
09.12.2025 relating to the assessment year 2021-2022.
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of furniture and is registered under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. During the relevant period 2021-2022, the petitioner filed its returns and paid the appropriate taxes. On verification of returns, discrepancies were noted regarding ITC Mismatch, Cancellation of E-way Bill and E-way Bill Mismatch.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a notice in DRC-01 was issued on 28.09.2025, however, the petitioner had neither filed reply nor paid the disputed tax. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served on the petitioner by tender or sending it by RPAD, instead it had been uploaded on the GST Portal, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and was thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, they would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon the recent judgment of this Court in the case of Sree Manoj International Vs. Deputy State Tax Officer in W.P.No.10977 of 2024 dated 25.04.2024, to submit that this court has remanded the matter back in similar circumstances subject to payment of 10% of the disputed taxes.
5. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay
10% of the disputed tax and that they may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection.
6. By consent of both parties, the writ petition stands disposed of on the following terms:
a) The impugned order dated 09.12.2025 is set aside.
b) The petitioner shall deposit 10% of the disputed taxes as admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
c) If any amount has been recovered or paid out of the disputed taxes, including by way of pre-deposit in appeal, the same would be reduced/adjusted, from/towards the 10% of disputed taxes directed to be paid. The assessing authority shall then intimate the balance amount out of 10 % of disputed taxes to be paid, if any, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner shall deposit such remaining sum within a period of three weeks from such intimation.
d) The entire exercise of verification of payment, if any, intimation of the balance sums, if any, to be paid for compliance with the direction of payment of 10% of the disputed taxes, after deducting the sums already paid and payment by the petitioner of the balance amount, if any, on intimation in compliance with the above direction shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
e) Failure to comply with the above condition viz., payment of 10% of disputed taxes within the stipulated period i.e., four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order shall result in restoration of the impugned order.
f) If there is any recovery by way of attachment of Bank account or garnishee proceedings, the same shall be lifted /withdrawn on complying with the above condition viz., payment of 10 % of the disputed taxes.
g) On complying with the above condition, the impugned order of assessment shall be treated as show cause notice and the
