High Court · 2025

W.P.No.12403 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.04.2025Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.12403 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.14006 and 14009 of 2025Tvl.Sri Maheshwari Textiles,(Represented by its Proprietor Mr.R.Venkatesan)24,25,26, Surat Textile Market,Bargur, Krishnagiri-635 104. ...Petitioner Vs.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC),Krishnagiri-2, Assessment CircleKrishnagiri. ...RespondentPrayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in FORM GST DRC 07 with Reference No:ZD330824144788X dated 19.08.2024 along with detailed proceedings in GST:33AELPV2872E1ZA/2019-20 dated 19.08.2024 for the tax period 2019-20 and quash the same.1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12403 of 2025For Petitioner: Mr.N.ChandrasekarFor Respondent : Ms.P.Selvi Government Advocate (Taxes) Order Ms.P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 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 order dated 19.08.2024 passed by the respondent for the AY 2019-20 and to quash the same.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 23.05.2024 followed by three personal hearing notices dated 21.06.2024, 07.08.2024 and 16.08.2024 and one reminder notice dated 12.08.2024, by uploading the same in the GST portal, without serving them through the physical mode That apart, the petitioner's staff who is handling the GST matters failed to 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12403 of 2025inform 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 order. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order 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 order. 3.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondent fairly submitted that since the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered. 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12403 of 20255. 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, 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12403 of 2025formalities. 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 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 serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the following directions:-i) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 19.08.2024 is set aside. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12403 of 2025ii)Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 25% 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 copy 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 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 order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment, if any, made on the 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12403 of 2025bank 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 25% as stated above. 8. 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/no7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12403 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,arrToThe Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC),Krishnagiri-2, Assessment CircleKrishnagiri.W.P.No.12403 of 2025 08.04.20258/8