ZE) v. The Assistant Commissioner of GST
Case at a glance
Outcome
Remanded
2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner 4/7
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned…
Judgment
W.P.No.6153 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 18.03.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.6153 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.6763 & 6765 of 2025M/s.Nakoda Poly & Woods (33AAPFN3069B1ZE),Rep by its Managing Partner, M.Gowtham Chand, Door No.119, Plot No.36, Reddiyur Block, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Five Roads, Salem 636 004... Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of GST,Alagapuram: Salem I Assessment Circle, IInd Floor, Integrated CT Buildings, Survey No. 17-2, Ward J, Block 3,Pitchards Road, Salem 636 007... RespondentPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the impugned order on the file of the respondent vide Ref. No.ZD3308242250920 dated 24.08.2024 and quash the same.1/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6153 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.J.MadhusuthananFor Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Government AdvocateORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the respondent.
Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column 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 respondent without providing 2/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6153 of 2025any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed.
Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent 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 respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.3/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6153 of 20256. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
Operative part
7. In the case on hand, it is clear that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits. 8. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 24.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner 4/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6153 of 2025shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from today (18.03.2025) and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.
(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 receipt of copy of this order. (iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent 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. (iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the respondent is directed to instruct the concerned Bank to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, 5/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6153 of 2025immediately upon the production of proof with regard to the payment made by the petitioner as stated above.9.
With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.18.03.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaToThe Assistant Commissioner of GST,Alagapuram: Salem I Assessment Circle, IInd Floor, Integrated CT Buildings, Survey No. 17-2, Ward J, Block 3,Pitchards Road, Salem 636 0076/7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.6153 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.6153 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.6763 & 6765 of 202518.03.20257/7
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: 2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner 4/7
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.