BharatTaxGST

Tvl Vel Nadar Kalanjiyamani vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer -1

Original PDF →
WP(MD)/8371/2026HC MadrasGSTCNR HCMD01041742202630 March 2026Bench: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY4 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
W.P.(MD) No.8371 of 2026 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 30.03.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY W.P.(MD) No.8371 of 2026 and W.M.P.(MD) No.6825 of 2026 Tvl.Vel Nadar Kalanjiyamani, GSTIN : 33CBKPK6591B1ZO, 4/118, Madianoor, Avudayanoor, Tenkasi - 627808. ... Petitioner Vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1, Tenkasi-Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tenkasi. ... Respondent Prayer : 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 Muthu For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R This Writ Petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 10.12.2025. 2. 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. 3.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

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 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 JEN Neutral Citation : No To The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1, Tenkasi-Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tenkasi. _____________ Page No. 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

, J.

JEN

30.03.

2026 _____________ Page No. 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.