High Court · 2025

W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 29.04.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.17182, 17191, 17213 & 17218 of 2025Tvl.Montbelu Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,Rep by its Proprietor, Selvakumar Ramanujam,3rd Floor, No.122, Appusamy Road,PV Motors, Red Fieldd, Coimbatore,Tamil Nadu 641 045... Petitioner in both petitions Vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) 1,Singanallur North Assessment Circle,Coimbatore 18... Respondents in both petitionsCommon Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Impugned Assessment Order in Ref.No.ZD3308241884534 dated 21.08.2024 & Ref.No.ZD330824172241L dated 20.08.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 and uploaded the same along with the summary of order in DRC07 for the Financial Year 2019-20 issued by the respondent herein from the files of the respondent herein, 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025Quash the same For Petitionerin both petitions : Ms.Kumudhaa GFor Respondentin both petitions : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government PleaderCOMMON ORDERThese writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 20.08.2024 & 21.08.2024 passed by the respondent.2. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent in both cases. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent 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 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, these petitions have been filed. 4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent in each cases. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned orders. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the 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 orders. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matters back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 20256. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 7. In the cases 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 the impugned assessment orders 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025under 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. 9. 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 each case. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 20.08.2024 & 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 202521.08.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned orders dated 20.08.2024 & 21.08.2024 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent, in each case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned orders 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 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. 11. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.29.04.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaToThe Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) 1,Singanallur North Assessment Circle,Coimbatore 187/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.17182, 17191, 17213 & 17218 of 2025 29.04.20258/8

W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 29.04.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.17182, 17191, 17213 & 17218 of 2025Tvl.Montbelu Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,Rep by its Proprietor, Selvakumar Ramanujam,3rd Floor, No.122, Appusamy Road,PV Motors, Red Fieldd, Coimbatore,Tamil Nadu 641 045... Petitioner in both petitions Vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) 1,Singanallur North Assessment Circle,Coimbatore 18... Respondents in both petitionsCommon Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the Impugned Assessment Order in Ref.No.ZD3308241884534 dated 21.08.2024 & Ref.No.ZD330824172241L dated 20.08.2024 under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 and uploaded the same along with the summary of order in DRC07 for the Financial Year 2019-20 issued by the respondent herein from the files of the respondent herein, 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025Quash the same For Petitionerin both petitions : Ms.Kumudhaa GFor Respondentin both petitions : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government PleaderCOMMON ORDERThese writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 20.08.2024 & 21.08.2024 passed by the respondent.2. Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent in both cases. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent 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 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, these petitions have been filed. 4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent in each cases. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned orders. 5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the 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 orders. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matters back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 20256. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 7. In the cases 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 the impugned assessment orders 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025under 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. 9. 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 each case. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 20.08.2024 & 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 202521.08.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned orders dated 20.08.2024 & 21.08.2024 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent, in each case, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned orders 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 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. 11. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.29.04.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaToThe Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) 1,Singanallur North Assessment Circle,Coimbatore 187/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.Nos.15224 & 15249 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.17182, 17191, 17213 & 17218 of 2025 29.04.20258/8