High Court · 2025

W.P.No.17206 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.06.2025CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.17206 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.19499, 19500 & 19501 of 2025SREE KRISHNA POWER ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANCY PVT LTD Rep by its Managing Director, Mr.THOLKAPPIYACHELVAN. ...Petitioner Vs.1. The Assistant Commissioner, Selaiyur: Tambaram Chengalpattu Fanepet Nandanam Chennai-35.2. The State Tax officer Group- VII Chengalpattu Intelligence Chengalpattu- 603 101.3. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Tambaram Zone 4th Floor Room No.422 Commercial Tax Dept, PAPJM Building No.1 Greams Road Chennai -06.4 The Branch Manager Bank of India No.9 Rajaji Road, West Tambaram, Chennai.5 Tvl. Parbati Koldam Transmission Company Limited HADBAST NO.187 Vill. Chotti Gardhon Rup Nagar Punjab- 140 001.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 20256. Tvl.Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Plot No.2A/ INS 02 Avadh Vihar Yojna Amar Saheed Path Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 226 002.7. Tvl. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited First Floor 17/18 Mahindra Towers Pattulous Road Anna Salai Chennai-02. ...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 Reference Number .ZD3304242338695/2018-19 dated 29.04.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as contrary to law and consequently, to direct the 3rd Respondent to de-freeze the bank account bearing GSTIN 33AAMCS7313M1ZO/2018-19 Dated 25.02.2025 of the Petitioner-Registered Taxable Person. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanan For Respondents 1to 3 : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (T) Order Heard Mr.S.Ramanan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (T) who takes 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 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 first respondent dated 29.04.2024 and to quash the same, and consequently, to direct third respondent to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner. 3. Mr.S.Ramanan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent issued a notice in Form DRC-01 dated 27.12.2023, to which, the petitioner filed their reply in Form GST DRC-06 dated 27.01.2024; that subsequently, the second respondent also issued a notice, viz., DRC-01A dated 27.04.2024, to which even, the petitioner filed their reply along with supportive documents, pursuant to which, the second respondent issued an intimation regarding conclusion of proceedings dated 19.06.2024; that while that being so, the first respondent had proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.04.2024. Further, it is the submitted by the learned counsel that since the second respondent has already concluded the proceedings on 19.06.2024, the petitioner was under 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025the impression that the entire assessment proceeding for the 2018-19 had been completed/settled through the demand order passed by the second respondent dated 19.06.2024, however, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 without even hearing the petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the same and to remand the matter back to the first respondent for re-consideration. 4. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondent-Department would submit that pursuant to the issuance of a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 by the first respondent dated 27.12.2023 along with personal hearing opportunity, the petitioner has filed a clarification dated 12.01.2024 and appeared for the personal hearing, however, since the clarification filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the first respondent proceeded to confirm the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the impugned order, and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that no personal hearing opportunity was provided. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that if at all, the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, they have to be necessarily, relegated to the Appellate Authority for agitating the issue by way of Appeal. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. In the present case, there is no dispute on the aspect that after issuance of the notice in Form DRC-01 by the first respondent dated 27.12.2023, the petitioner has filed their clarification dated 27.01.2024 and also appeared for the personal hearing and after taking into consideration of the said clarification, the respondent passed the impugned order, as the contention of the petitioner/taxpayer was not found comprehensive by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner can have no say that they have not been heard before passing the impugned order. Though the petitioner vide this Writ Petition makes an attempt to persuade this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the reply filed by the petitioner was not appreciated by the first respondent in a proper perspective, unless and until, this Court finds 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025any violation of principles of natural justice or arbitrariness while passing the impugned order, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court.6.1. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent-Department, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, alternate remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the assessment order by way of filing an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to file an Appeal against the order that is impugned herein before the Appellate Authority. In the event, the petitioner is desirous of availing such Appellate Remedy by way of complying with the mandatory deposit of 10% of the deposit, in addition to the same, the petitioner shall deposit 5% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in which case, the Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the Appeal without raising any issue on the limitation aspect. Since it is brought to the notice of this Court that in furtherance of the 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025impugned order, the petitioner's bank account has been attached, upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, the respondent-Department is directed to issue appropriate direction towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account and to permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 10.06.2025sdIndex : yes/noNeutral Citation : yes/noTo1. The Assistant Commissioner, Selaiyur: Tambaram Chengalpattu Fanepet Nandanam Chennai-35.2. The State Tax officer Group- VII Chengalpattu Intelligence Chengalpattu- 603 101.3. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Tambaram Zone 4th Floor Room No.422 Commercial Tax Dept, PAPJM Building No.1 Greams Road Chennai -06.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 20254 The Branch Manager Bank of India No.9 Rajaji Road, West Tambaram, Chennai.5 Tvl. Parbati Koldam Transmission Company Limited HADBAST NO.187 Vill. Chotti Gardhon Rup Nagar Punjab- 140 001.6. Tvl.Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Plot No.2A/ INS 02 Avadh Vihar Yojna Amar Saheed Path Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 226 002.7. Tvl. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited First Floor 17/18 Mahindra Towers Pattulous Road Anna Salai Chennai-02. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,sdW.P.No.17206 of 2025 10.06.20259/9

W.P.No.17206 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 10.06.2025CoramThe Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.17206 of 2025andW.M.P.Nos.19499, 19500 & 19501 of 2025SREE KRISHNA POWER ENGINEERING AND CONSULTANCY PVT LTD Rep by its Managing Director, Mr.THOLKAPPIYACHELVAN. ...Petitioner Vs.1. The Assistant Commissioner, Selaiyur: Tambaram Chengalpattu Fanepet Nandanam Chennai-35.2. The State Tax officer Group- VII Chengalpattu Intelligence Chengalpattu- 603 101.3. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Tambaram Zone 4th Floor Room No.422 Commercial Tax Dept, PAPJM Building No.1 Greams Road Chennai -06.4 The Branch Manager Bank of India No.9 Rajaji Road, West Tambaram, Chennai.5 Tvl. Parbati Koldam Transmission Company Limited HADBAST NO.187 Vill. Chotti Gardhon Rup Nagar Punjab- 140 001.1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 20256. Tvl.Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Plot No.2A/ INS 02 Avadh Vihar Yojna Amar Saheed Path Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 226 002.7. Tvl. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited First Floor 17/18 Mahindra Towers Pattulous Road Anna Salai Chennai-02. ...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 Reference Number .ZD3304242338695/2018-19 dated 29.04.2024 on the file of the 1st respondent and to quash the same as contrary to law and consequently, to direct the 3rd Respondent to de-freeze the bank account bearing GSTIN 33AAMCS7313M1ZO/2018-19 Dated 25.02.2025 of the Petitioner-Registered Taxable Person. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramanan For Respondents 1to 3 : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (T) Order Heard Mr.S.Ramanan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (T) who takes 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025notice on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3. 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 first respondent dated 29.04.2024 and to quash the same, and consequently, to direct third respondent to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner. 3. Mr.S.Ramanan learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent issued a notice in Form DRC-01 dated 27.12.2023, to which, the petitioner filed their reply in Form GST DRC-06 dated 27.01.2024; that subsequently, the second respondent also issued a notice, viz., DRC-01A dated 27.04.2024, to which even, the petitioner filed their reply along with supportive documents, pursuant to which, the second respondent issued an intimation regarding conclusion of proceedings dated 19.06.2024; that while that being so, the first respondent had proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.04.2024. Further, it is the submitted by the learned counsel that since the second respondent has already concluded the proceedings on 19.06.2024, the petitioner was under 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025the impression that the entire assessment proceeding for the 2018-19 had been completed/settled through the demand order passed by the second respondent dated 19.06.2024, however, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 without even hearing the petitioner, which is in violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the same and to remand the matter back to the first respondent for re-consideration. 4. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondent-Department would submit that pursuant to the issuance of a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 by the first respondent dated 27.12.2023 along with personal hearing opportunity, the petitioner has filed a clarification dated 12.01.2024 and appeared for the personal hearing, however, since the clarification filed by the petitioner is not satisfactory, the first respondent proceeded to confirm the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the impugned order, and therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that no personal hearing opportunity was provided. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that if at all, the 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, they have to be necessarily, relegated to the Appellate Authority for agitating the issue by way of Appeal. 5. I have given due consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. In the present case, there is no dispute on the aspect that after issuance of the notice in Form DRC-01 by the first respondent dated 27.12.2023, the petitioner has filed their clarification dated 27.01.2024 and also appeared for the personal hearing and after taking into consideration of the said clarification, the respondent passed the impugned order, as the contention of the petitioner/taxpayer was not found comprehensive by the first respondent. Therefore, the petitioner can have no say that they have not been heard before passing the impugned order. Though the petitioner vide this Writ Petition makes an attempt to persuade this Court to arrive at a conclusion that the reply filed by the petitioner was not appreciated by the first respondent in a proper perspective, unless and until, this Court finds 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025any violation of principles of natural justice or arbitrariness while passing the impugned order, the same cannot be interfered with by this Court.6.1. Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate for the respondent-Department, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order, alternate remedy available to the petitioner is to challenge the assessment order by way of filing an Appeal before the Appellate Authority. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to file an Appeal against the order that is impugned herein before the Appellate Authority. In the event, the petitioner is desirous of availing such Appellate Remedy by way of complying with the mandatory deposit of 10% of the deposit, in addition to the same, the petitioner shall deposit 5% of the disputed tax within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in which case, the Appellate Authority is directed to entertain the Appeal without raising any issue on the limitation aspect. Since it is brought to the notice of this Court that in furtherance of the 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025impugned order, the petitioner's bank account has been attached, upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, the respondent-Department is directed to issue appropriate direction towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account and to permit the petitioner to operate the account forthwith. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 10.06.2025sdIndex : yes/noNeutral Citation : yes/noTo1. The Assistant Commissioner, Selaiyur: Tambaram Chengalpattu Fanepet Nandanam Chennai-35.2. The State Tax officer Group- VII Chengalpattu Intelligence Chengalpattu- 603 101.3. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC) Tambaram Zone 4th Floor Room No.422 Commercial Tax Dept, PAPJM Building No.1 Greams Road Chennai -06.7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 20254 The Branch Manager Bank of India No.9 Rajaji Road, West Tambaram, Chennai.5 Tvl. Parbati Koldam Transmission Company Limited HADBAST NO.187 Vill. Chotti Gardhon Rup Nagar Punjab- 140 001.6. Tvl.Power Grid Corporation of India Limited Plot No.2A/ INS 02 Avadh Vihar Yojna Amar Saheed Path Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 226 002.7. Tvl. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited First Floor 17/18 Mahindra Towers Pattulous Road Anna Salai Chennai-02. 8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.17206 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,sdW.P.No.17206 of 2025 10.06.20259/9