Facts of the Case

C. Balasubramanian, a contractor, challenged an ex-parte order passed by the State Tax Officer (Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle) for GSTIN 33BENPR5973K1ZQ relating to tax period 2018-2019 (Order dated 08.04.2024, ARN-AD3307220185962), along with its consequential summary in Form GST DRC-07 issued by the Commercial Tax Officer, before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner submitted that since notice had been served only through the online portal, he remained unaware of the proceedings until the order was passed.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an ex-parte GST assessment order, where notice was communicated only via the online portal and the assessee remained unaware, should be quashed to permit a hearing on merits.
  2. What conditions should attach to such relief, given the standard practice of requiring a partial pre-deposit.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order was passed ex parte since notice had been served only through the online portal, of which the petitioner had no knowledge, and he should be given an opportunity to reply and be heard.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Additional Government Pleader submitted that in similar matters, relief has been granted by directing the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for reopening the assessment.

Court Order / Findings

  • Accepting the petitioner's undertaking to deposit 25% of the disputed tax through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days, the Court directed that the attachment on the petitioner's ITC account shall be raised upon such deposit and the impugned order shall stand quashed.
  • The petitioner was directed to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days of the deposit, following which the respondent must grant a personal hearing and pass a final order within two months; failure to deposit and reply within the stipulated period would automatically recall this relief and revive the impugned order.

Important Clarification

  • Where a GST assessment order is passed ex parte with notice communicated only via the online portal, Madras High Court routinely conditions relief on a 25% deposit of the disputed tax within a set period, coupled with a further reply and hearing timeline — a self-executing formula that lapses automatically if the assessee defaults.
  • Such relief simultaneously protects the department's revenue interest (via the deposit) and the assessee's right to be heard (via quashing and a fresh hearing), without the Court examining the underlying tax liability.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73/74, GST Act – underlying provision for the tax assessment under challenge (the order form used, DRC-07, is common to both).
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 – governs modes of service of notices, central to the petitioner's grievance of portal-only communication.

Decision – In Favour of

The writ petition was disposed of on a conditional basis favouring the assessee — the ex-parte order was quashed and a fresh hearing granted — subject to the 25% pre-deposit and compliance timelines, making it, in substance, disposed of with directions rather than an outright win for either side.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. Case No.: W.P(MD)No.32572 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)No.25660 of 2025. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.R. Swaminathan. Date of Order: 14th November, 2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.