High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
W.P.No.12275 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :04.04.2025Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.12275 of 2025 andW.M.P.Nos.13856, 13858 and 13859 of 2025 Avudaiyappan Thavamani Proprietor of TVL. Jai Enterprises No. 31/147 North Mada StreetThiruvottiyur, Chennai- 600019. ...Petitioner Vs.1 The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Thiruvottiyur Assessment Circle Integrated Commercial Taxes Offices Building Thiruvallur Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Deputy Branch Manager Indus Ind bank Bank Limited West Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai-600040 ...Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records from the files of 1st Respondent in Impugned Order vide GSTN . 33APFPT1298D1ZV/2018-19 dated 22.04.2024 along with consequential 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025order vide Form GST DRC-07 bearing a Reference No. .ZD330424156176I dated 22.04.2024 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd Respondent to lift the bank attachment by withdrawing the letter dated 27.12.2024 issued to the Petitioner bearing Ref No. R.C/28/2024/A2 dated 29.11.2024. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Rajendran For Respondent-1 : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate (T)Order Heard Mr.S.Rajendran learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Vasanthamala learnedGovernment Advocate (T) who takes notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. 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 passed by the 1st Respondent dated 22.04.2024 along with consequential order dated 22.04.2024 and quash the same and further to direct the 2nd Respondent to lift the bank attachment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 along with subsequent notice were 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025uploaded vide the GST on-line portal, but the petitioner was unaware of the said notices, and hence, failed to file reply to such show cause notice and appear before the respondent, however, the first respondent, without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice and uploaded the said order on the Gst On-line Portal. 3.1 Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside. However, it is stated that the petitioner is also ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remands the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration, and thus, prays for appropriate orders. 4. The learned Government Advocate (T) 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.12275 of 2025 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. Further, the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to the petitioner. 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. 6. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who finds no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices, instead of sending repeated reminders, 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, the service of notice will not be deemed to be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same would 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.6.1 Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, as the same suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, once the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in the event the impugned order is set aside, this Court is inclined to pass/issue the following orders/directions:-5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025i) The impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 22.04.2024 along with consequential order dated 22.04.2024 are set aside. ii)Consequently, the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves have 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 first respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a 14 clear days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law.andvi) So far as the bank attachment order is concerned, upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, respondent-Department is directed to issue appropriate direction on the petitioner's banker towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account forthwith and permit the petitioner to operate the bank account. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 20257. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 04.04.2025sdIndex : yes/noNeutral Citation : yes/noTo1 The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Thiruvottiyur Assessment Circle Integrated Commercial Taxes Offices Building Thiruvallur Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Deputy Branch Manager Indus Ind bank Bank Limited West Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai-600040 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,sdW.P.No.12275 of 2025 04.04.20258/8
W.P.No.12275 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED :04.04.2025Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.12275 of 2025 andW.M.P.Nos.13856, 13858 and 13859 of 2025 Avudaiyappan Thavamani Proprietor of TVL. Jai Enterprises No. 31/147 North Mada StreetThiruvottiyur, Chennai- 600019. ...Petitioner Vs.1 The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Thiruvottiyur Assessment Circle Integrated Commercial Taxes Offices Building Thiruvallur Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Deputy Branch Manager Indus Ind bank Bank Limited West Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai-600040 ...Respondents Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records from the files of 1st Respondent in Impugned Order vide GSTN . 33APFPT1298D1ZV/2018-19 dated 22.04.2024 along with consequential 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025order vide Form GST DRC-07 bearing a Reference No. .ZD330424156176I dated 22.04.2024 and quash the same and further direct the 2nd Respondent to lift the bank attachment by withdrawing the letter dated 27.12.2024 issued to the Petitioner bearing Ref No. R.C/28/2024/A2 dated 29.11.2024. For Petitioner: Mr.S.Rajendran For Respondent-1 : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate (T)Order Heard Mr.S.Rajendran learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Vasanthamala learnedGovernment Advocate (T) who takes notice on behalf of the respondent No.1. 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 passed by the 1st Respondent dated 22.04.2024 along with consequential order dated 22.04.2024 and quash the same and further to direct the 2nd Respondent to lift the bank attachment. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a show cause notice in Form GST DRC-01 along with subsequent notice were 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025uploaded vide the GST on-line portal, but the petitioner was unaware of the said notices, and hence, failed to file reply to such show cause notice and appear before the respondent, however, the first respondent, without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice and uploaded the said order on the Gst On-line Portal. 3.1 Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside. However, it is stated that the petitioner is also ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remands the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration, and thus, prays for appropriate orders. 4. The learned Government Advocate (T) 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.12275 of 2025 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. Further, the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to the petitioner. 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. 6. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who finds no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices, instead of sending repeated reminders, 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, the service of notice will not be deemed to be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same would 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.6.1 Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, as the same suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice. Thus, once the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit, however, considering the fact that the petitioner has come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in the event the impugned order is set aside, this Court is inclined to pass/issue the following orders/directions:-5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025i) The impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 22.04.2024 along with consequential order dated 22.04.2024 are set aside. ii)Consequently, the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves have 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 first respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a 14 clear days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law.andvi) So far as the bank attachment order is concerned, upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, respondent-Department is directed to issue appropriate direction on the petitioner's banker towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account forthwith and permit the petitioner to operate the bank account. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 20257. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 04.04.2025sdIndex : yes/noNeutral Citation : yes/noTo1 The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 Office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer Thiruvottiyur Assessment Circle Integrated Commercial Taxes Offices Building Thiruvallur Division No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Deputy Branch Manager Indus Ind bank Bank Limited West Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai-600040 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.12275 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,sdW.P.No.12275 of 2025 04.04.20258/8