High Court · 2025

W.P.No.13985 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 22.04.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.13985 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.15747 & 15748 of 2025 Tvl.Launchville,Rep by Proprietor, Syed Basha Sadiq,Plot No.70, New SIDCO Industrial Area,Sri Nagar, Hosur, Krishnagiri,Tamil Nadu 635 109... Petitioner Vs. 1.Commercial Tax Officer, Hosur (North) I, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu, CT Building, Seetharaman Nagar, Bangalore Road, Near Old Bus Stand, Hosur, Tamil Nadu 635 1092.The Branch Manager, South Indian Bank, Building No.C.P. XV/464, Ajmal Shopping Arcade, Chengala P.O., Cherkala, Kesargod, Kerala 671 541... Respondents1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13985 of 2025Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order bearing GSTIN: 33CVEPS1497N1ZX dated 16.08.2024 along with the summary order Form GST DRC-07 bearing Ref.No.ZD330824129322M dated 16.08.2024 passed by the respondent and quash the same as the same being arbitrary, passed in violation or principles of natural justice and also in violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution and subsequently, lift the bank attachment made by the 1st respondent.For Petitioner : Ms.N.AsmithaFor Respondent : Mr.C.Harsha Raj, Special Government Pleader for R1ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13985 of 20252. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, 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 any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed. 4. 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. 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13985 of 20255. On the other hand, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent would submit that the 1st 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.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the 1st respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13985 of 2025furnished 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. 8. 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. 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13985 of 20259. 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. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.10. 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 16.08.2024 passed by the 1st respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 16.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13985 of 2025of receipt of a copy of this order. 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 payment of amount as stated above.(iii) 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) 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 2nd respondent is directed to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13985 of 2025proof with regard to the payment made by the petitioner as stated above.11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.22.04.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaTo1.Commercial Tax Officer, Hosur (North) I, Krishnagiri, Tamil Nadu, CT Building, Seetharaman Nagar, Bangalore Road, Near Old Bus Stand, Hosur, Tamil Nadu 635 1092.The Branch Manager, South Indian Bank, Building No.C.P. XV/464, Ajmal Shopping Arcade, Chengala P.O., Cherkala, Kesargod, Kerala 671 5418/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.13985 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.13985 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.15747 & 15748 of 2025 22.04.20259/9