Grandaddy Vs Deputy Commissioner (ST) (Madras High Court)
Madras High Court has intervened in a dispute involving an advertising and consulting firm, Grandaddy, and the Deputy Commissioner (ST), ruling that the firm’s failure to monitor the “additional notice tab” on the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Portal should not be considered a fatal oversight. The judgment, delivered recently, underscores the importance of proper communication in tax proceedings, particularly when official notices are solely uploaded online without physical service.
The case originated when Grandaddy, registered under GST since 2018, faced a demand order issued by the second respondent on August 16, 2024. This order followed an earlier show cause notice dated April 23, 2024, which had been uploaded to the GST Portal. The petitioner stated that this notice went unnoticed as it had not checked the specific “additional notice column” on the portal. Consequently, with no reply received from the firm, the authorities proceeded to confirm the demand.
Aggrieved by this ex-parte order, Grandaddy filed an appeal before the first respondent, the Appellate Authority, on December 20, 2024. However, this appeal was dismissed on April 7, 2025, solely on the grounds of delay in filing. Faced with both the confirmed demand and the dismissed appeal, the firm approached the Madras High Court seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash both orders and secure an opportunity for a personal hearing.
