High Court · 2025

W.P.No.16712 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 02.06.2025Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan RamasamyW.P.No.16712 of 2025 andW.M.P.Nos. 18916 & 18917 of 2025 Tvl. JAGAN TRADING CORPORATION Represented by its Proprietor,Mr.M.A. Jegadeesh No.29/3 Sembudoss Street Broadway Chennai 600 001. ...Petitioner Vs1 THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER THE DEPUTY COMMERICIAL TAX OFFICER BROADWAY ASSESSMENT CIRCLE NO. 32 ELEPHANT GATE BRIDGE RAOD INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICE COMPLEX VEPERY, CHENNAI – 600 003. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) GST Appeal PAPJM Buildings No.6 Greams Road Egmore, Chennai 600 006. RespondentsPrayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records from the file of first respondent in impugned assessment order Reference No. ZD3310230411355 in GSTIN/ID : 33AISPJ7533M1ZP dated 09.10.2023 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16712 of 2025passed for the F.Y.2019-20 and quash the same as illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. For Petitioner: Mr.R.Ananth for Mr.Pooventhera Rajan For Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate (T) Order Heard Mr.R.Ananth, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate (T) who takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 respondent dated 09.10.2023 for the F.Y.2019-20 and to quash the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that both the show cause notice and the impugned order have been merely uploaded in the GST portal and not served on the petitioner by any other mode of service, therefore, there has been no proper service of show cause notice, and therefore, the impugned assessment order passed by the first respondent 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16712 of 2025suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside. Further, it is contended that the petitioner, upon coming to know of the impugned order took steps to file an Appeal by depositing 10% of the disputed tax, however, since the said Appeal has been filed beyond the statutory period, the same has not been entertained. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also ready and willing to pay 15% 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 concerned for fresh consideration and thus, prays for appropriate orders. 4. The learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondents fairly submitted that since the petitioner has deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the time of filing Appeal and has voluntarily come forward to deposit 15% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered. 5. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16712 of 2025impugned 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, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice. 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 formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same would pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16712 of 2025concerned, 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 already deposited 10% of the tax amount at the time of filing Appeal and has now come forward to deposit 15% of the disputed tax in the event the impugned order is set aside, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders/directions:-5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16712 of 2025i) The impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 09.10.2023 is set aside. ii)Consequently, the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 15% 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. andv) 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. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition are closed. 02.06.2025sdIndex : yes/noNeutral Citation : yes/no6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16712 of 2025To1 THE DEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER THE DEPUTY COMMERICIAL TAX OFFICER BROADWAY ASSESSMENT CIRCLE NO. 32 ELEPHANT GATE BRIDGE RAOD INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL TAXES OFFICE COMPLEX VEPERY, CHENNAI – 600 003. 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ST) GST Appeal PAPJM Buildings No.6 Greams Road Egmore, Chennai 600 006. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.16712 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J.,sdW.P.No.16712 of 2025 02.06.20258/8