High Court · 2025

WP No. 8520 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 18-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 8520 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 9545 OF 2025,WMP NO. 9547 OF 2025Klean N Karee,Represented by its Partner, BUHARI TASLIM ARIF, 26/47, Mothilal Street, T Nagar, Chennai, Chennai-017.Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC),O/o. the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), GST Appeal, Chennai- I, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, NO.1, Greams Road, Chennai-06.2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/ The Deputy State Tax OfficerPondy Bazaar Assessment Circle,No.46, 2nd Floor, Mylapore Taluk Office, Greenways Road, Chennai-28.Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 2025PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the 2nd respondent demand order made in Reference No.ZD330824217632I dated 24.08.2024 and order of the 1st respondent made in ARN/AD330125028346F/2019-20, dated 18.01.2025, which is singed on 18.02.2025 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to given an opportunity of personal hearing.For Petitioner(s):Mr.P. Suresh BabuFor Respondent(s):Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Advocate (t)ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 24.08.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential appeal rejection order dated 18.01.2025, passed by the 1st respondent, relating to the Financial Year 2019-2020 and to quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 2025 2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, the petitioner have not received any physical copy of the show cause notice and also personal hearing notice. The show cause notice dated 30.05.2024 and three reminders were uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned assessment order dated 24.08.2024 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner after knowing about the impugned assessment order being passed by the 2nd respondent, had preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent by paying 10% statutory deposit of the disputed tax demand. However, the appeal got rejected on the ground of limitation vide order dated 18.01.2025. Hence, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay another 15% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period and prayed to set aside the impugned orders directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to file their reply and provide an opportunity of personal hearing so that the petitioner would be able to substantiate their case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 2025 3.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that as per the voluntary submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, subject to the deposit of 15% of the disputed tax demand in addition to the 10% deposit already being made by the petitioner in respect of the impugned assessment period, if the Court feels it appropriate and it is a fit case for re-consideration, this Court may consider and pass orders.4.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record. 5.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 2025issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice. 6.No doubt sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 2025the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. 7.Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to the petitioner. For the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 24.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash impugned appeal rejection order dated 18.01.2025 passed by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, this Court pass the following orders:- (i) The impugned assessment order dated 24.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, on condition that the petitioner deposits 15% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period in addition to the 10% statutory deposit already made, as agreed by the petitioner, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 2025within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.ii) Since the impugned assessment order dated 24.08.2024 is set aside and remanded back to the 2nd respondent, the impugned appeal rejection order dated 18.01.2025 is quashed.(iii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.(iv) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the 1st 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) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, the respondent-Department is directed to issue appropriate direction on the petitioner's banker towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account forthwith. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 20258.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.18-07-2025rstIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 2025To1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC)O/o. the Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC), GST Appeal, Chennai- I, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, NO.1, Greams Road, Chennai-06.2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer/ The Deputy State Tax Officer,Pondy Bazaar Assessment Circle,No.46, 2nd Floor, Mylapore Taluk Office, Greenways Road, Chennai-28. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 8520 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No. 8520 of 2025AND WMP NO. 9545 OF 2025,WMP NO. 9547 OF 202518-07-2025