Tvl.Vel Nadar Kalanjiyamani,GSTIN : 33 v. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1,Tenkasi-Assessment Circle,Commercial Taxes Buildings,Tenkasi
Case at a glance
- Bench
- D BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
Outcome
Allowed
This Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:i
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that when there was a mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity when the show cause notice and personal hearing…
- Para 33. It is the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice as well as the personal hearing notices were uploaded on the web portal and that there was no effective physical service or proper intimation. Therefore, since the petitioner failed to notice the…
Judgment
W.P.(MD) No.8371 of 2026BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED : 30.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYW.P.(MD) No.8371 of 2026andW.M.P.(MD) No.6825 of 2026 Tvl. Vel Nadar Kalanjiyamani, GSTIN : 33CBKPK6591B1ZO,4/118, Madianoor, Avudayanoor, Tenkasi - 627808.... PetitionerVs.The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1,Tenkasi-Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tenkasi.... RespondentPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN: 33CBKPK6591B1ZO/2021-22 dated 10.12.2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22 passed by the respondent under Section 73 of TNGST Act, 2017 and quash the same as cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment order afresh after affording opportunity of being heard._____________Page No. 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8371 of 2026 For Petitioner: Mr.N.Sudalai MuthuFor Respondent: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government PleaderO R D E RThis Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 10.12.2025.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order, it can be seen that when there was a mismatch between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B, the petitioner did not avail the opportunity when the show cause notice and personal hearing notices were uploaded on the web portal. Accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed ex parte.
Operative part
It is the contention of the petitioner that the show cause notice as well as the personal hearing notices were uploaded on the web portal and that there was no effective physical service or proper intimation. Therefore, since the petitioner failed to notice the same and file a reply, the impugned proceedings came to be passed. _____________Page No. 2 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8371 of 20264. 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 10.12.2025 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. 30.03.2026 JENNeutral Citation : NoToThe Deputy State Tax Officer - 1,Tenkasi-Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tenkasi._____________Page No. 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.(MD) No.8371 of 2026D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY , J. JENW.P.(MD) No.8371 of 2026 30.03.2026_____________Page No. 4 of 4
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: This Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms:i
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.