Sri Ponkaliamman Contractor, Vs The Joint Commissioner(Appeals)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned orders passed by the 2^nd respondent in reference No.ZD330725357232H, dated 31.07.2025 and consequent summary order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.07.2025 under Section

¶15

1/10

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

W.P.(MD)No.4432 of 2026

¶18

74 of the GST Act and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reclassify the proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act treating the case as one involving delay in reporting and payment of tax.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.T.a.Ebenezer For Respondents : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, Addl. Govt. Pleader.

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 2^nd respondent in reference No.ZD330725357232H, dated 31.07.2025 and consequent summary order in Form GST DRC-07, dated 31.07.2025 under Section 74 of the GST Act and also seeking for a consequential direction, directing the respondents to reclassify the proceedings under Section 73 of the GST Act treating the case as one involving delay in reporting and payment of tax.

¶22

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government

¶23

Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the

¶24

2/10

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

W.P.(MD)No.4432 of 2026

¶27

parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶28

By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶29

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondents 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 respondents without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, summary order has been passed on 31.07.2025. As against the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the 2 nd respondent. However, the said appeal was rejected on the ground that there is a delay in submission of appeal. Challenging the order passed by the 2 nd respondent dated 31.07.2025 and the consequential summary order dated 31.07.2025, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition.

¶30

3/10

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

W.P.(MD)No.4432 of 2026

¶33

5. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is

¶34

willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondents. 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.

¶35

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondents 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 respondents, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.

¶36

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶37

learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

¶38

4/10

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

W.P.(MD)No.4432 of 2026

¶41

8 . In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause

¶42

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.

¶43

9. 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 litigations,

¶44

5/10

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶46

W.P.(MD)No.4432 of 2026

¶47

not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.

¶48

10 . Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to

¶49

the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.

¶50

11 . Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 31.07.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential summary order dated 31.07.2025. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

¶51

(i) The impugned order dated 31.07.2025 passed by

¶52

6/10

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

W.P.(MD)No.4432 of 2026

¶55

the 2 nd respondent and the consequential summary order dated 31.07.2025 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents, as agreed, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned orders will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.

¶56

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.

¶57

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

¶58

7/10

¶59

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶60

W.P.(MD)No.4432 of 2026

¶61

12 . With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed

¶62

of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶63

18.02.2026