High Court · 2025

W.P.No.12383 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.04.2025Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.12383 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.13987 and 13989 of 2025M/s.Chandra Lungi Company,Represented by its Proprietor,Mr.Thiyagarajan Nagappan,No.45, Ranganathan Street,Podathurpet, Pallipet TalukTiruvallur-631208. ...Petitioner Vs.1. The State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruttani Assessment Circle, Ward B Block-25, TS No.22, Gandhi Road, Arakkonam-631001.2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC), GST Appeal-Chennai-I, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, No.1 Greams Road, Chennai-600 006. ...RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order passed in GSTIN/33ARTPT0985H2Z4/2017-18 dated 30.10.2023 on the file of the First Respondent herein along with the consequential DRC-07 Order under Section 73, Ref No.ZD331023193696A dated 30.10.2023 on the file of the First Respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary against the principle of natural justice and against the law.For Petitioner: Mr.J.Poojesh for Mr.M.Sunil KumarFor Respondents : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) Order Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the orders dated 30.10.2023 passed by the 1st respondent for the AY 2017-18 and to quash the same.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 20253. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.08.2023 followed by reminder notice dated 20.10.2023, by uploading the same in the GST portal, without serving them through the physical mode. That apart, the petitioner's accountant who is handling the GST matters failed to inform about the same to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner was not aware of those notices and hence failed to file its reply. Since the petitioner failed to file reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent has confirmed the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the present impugned orders. The petitioner came to know of the impugned orders only after the initiation of recovery proceedings by the 1st respondent. Immediately the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent , which was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground of delay. Further the learned counsel would submit that the impugned orders suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned orders. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 20253.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax before the authority at the time of filing appeal and the petitioner is nowready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents fairly submitted that since the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered. 5. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side 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 issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025this 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 the 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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025other 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 serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned orders with terms, by issuing the following directions:-i) The impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 30.10.2023 is set aside. ii)Consequently, the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves had voluntarily came forward to make such payment, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025copy of this order. iv) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents within a period of two weeks. v) Thereupon, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. vi) Considering the fact that the impugned orders itself have been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment, if any, 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 on the bank account of the petitioner, forthwith on production of proof with regard to payment of 15% as stated above. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 20258. With the above observations & directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 08.04.2025arrIndex : yes/noNeutral Citation : yes/noToThe Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC),Krishnagiri-2, Assessment CircleKrishnagiri.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,arrW.P.No.12383 of 2025 08.04.20259/9

W.P.No.12383 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.04.2025Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.12383 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.13987 and 13989 of 2025M/s.Chandra Lungi Company,Represented by its Proprietor,Mr.Thiyagarajan Nagappan,No.45, Ranganathan Street,Podathurpet, Pallipet TalukTiruvallur-631208. ...Petitioner Vs.1. The State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer, Thiruttani Assessment Circle, Ward B Block-25, TS No.22, Gandhi Road, Arakkonam-631001.2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC), GST Appeal-Chennai-I, Annexe Building, 3rd Floor, No.1 Greams Road, Chennai-600 006. ...RespondentsPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the impugned order passed in GSTIN/33ARTPT0985H2Z4/2017-18 dated 30.10.2023 on the file of the First Respondent herein along with the consequential DRC-07 Order under Section 73, Ref No.ZD331023193696A dated 30.10.2023 on the file of the First Respondent herein and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary against the principle of natural justice and against the law.For Petitioner: Mr.J.Poojesh for Mr.M.Sunil KumarFor Respondents : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) Order Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the orders dated 30.10.2023 passed by the 1st respondent for the AY 2017-18 and to quash the same.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 20253. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 28.08.2023 followed by reminder notice dated 20.10.2023, by uploading the same in the GST portal, without serving them through the physical mode. That apart, the petitioner's accountant who is handling the GST matters failed to inform about the same to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner was not aware of those notices and hence failed to file its reply. Since the petitioner failed to file reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent has confirmed the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the present impugned orders. The petitioner came to know of the impugned orders only after the initiation of recovery proceedings by the 1st respondent. Immediately the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent , which was rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground of delay. Further the learned counsel would submit that the impugned orders suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned orders. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 20253.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax before the authority at the time of filing appeal and the petitioner is nowready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration. 4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondents fairly submitted that since the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered. 5. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side 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 issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025this 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 the 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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025other 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 serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned orders with terms, by issuing the following directions:-i) The impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent dated 30.10.2023 is set aside. ii)Consequently, the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves had voluntarily came forward to make such payment, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025copy of this order. iv) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents within a period of two weeks. v) Thereupon, the 1st respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. vi) Considering the fact that the impugned orders itself have been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment, if any, 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 on the bank account of the petitioner, forthwith on production of proof with regard to payment of 15% as stated above. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 20258. With the above observations & directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 08.04.2025arrIndex : yes/noNeutral Citation : yes/noToThe Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC),Krishnagiri-2, Assessment CircleKrishnagiri.8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12383 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,arrW.P.No.12383 of 2025 08.04.20259/9