High Court · 2025

W.P.No.16047 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 02.06.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.16047 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.18157, 18158 & 18159 of 2025 Tvl.Showspace Event Pvt.Ltd.,Rep by its Director Chandragiri Venkata Bhaskar,Plot No.8, 9, 10, 3rd Floor, Willow Square,First Street, Thiru Vi Ka Industrial Estate,Guindy 600 032... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT)(Appeal II), Greams Road, Chennai 600 0062.The Commercial Tax Officer, Office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Guindy Assessment Circle, No.253, 2nd Floor, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Nandhanam 600 035.3.The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, 113, GN Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai 600 017... Respondents1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16047 of 2025Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the Impugned Order vide Reference No ZD331223276507F dated 30/12/2023 for the Financial Year 2017-18 in FORM GST DRC-07 under Section 73 of the TNGST/CGST Act, 2017 passed by the 2nd Respondent and the records of the 1st Respondent pertaining to the impugned rejection order passed in FORM GST APL-02 vide Reference No ZD331024176571N dated 24/10/2024 solely on limitation and quash the same being illegal, void ab-initio, non-est in the eyes of the law and against the Principles of Natural Justice and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to restore the appeal of the Petitioner.For Petitioner : Mr.Thyagarajan KFor Respondent : Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, Government Advocate for R1 & R2ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent.2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16047 of 20252. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the 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. Therefore, this petition has been filed. 4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner has already paid 26% 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.16047 of 20255. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the srespondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, she has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Government Advocate for the 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 furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16047 of 2025the 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.16047 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 has already paid 26% 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 30.12.2023 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16047 of 2025(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 date of receipt of a copy of this order.(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the 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 3rd respondent is directed to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of a copy of this order.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16047 of 202511. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.02.06.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaTo1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT)(Appeal II), Greams Road, Chennai 600 0062.The Commercial Tax Officer, Office of Assistant Commissioner (ST), Guindy Assessment Circle, No.253, 2nd Floor, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Nandhanam 600 035.3.The Branch Manager, Axis Bank, 113, GN Chetty Road, T Nagar, Chennai 600 0178/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16047 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.16047 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.18157, 18158 & 18159 of 2025 02.06.20259/9