High Court · 2025

WP No. 21002 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 16-06-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 21002 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 23736 OF 2025,WMP NO. 23734 OF 2025M/s Bokaria Wire Netting Industries, Rep.by its Partner Mr Praveen Kumar BokariaOld No.12, New No.25, Vepery High Road, Periamet, Chennai, Tamil Nadu.Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST Appeals, Chennai I,Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST),Vepery Assessment Circle,No. 10 Greams Road, Palaniappa Maligai, Chennai 600 006.Respondent(s)PRAYER:Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 2nd Respondent in order dated 27.03.2023 in GSTIN/33AAAFW5372M1ZV/ 2019- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21002 of 202520 bearing Reference No. ZD330323131672T and the consequential rejection of appeal order dated 05.05.2025 in FORM GST APL-02 bearing Reference No. ZD330525018701Q passed by the 1st respondent and to quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice.For Petitioner(s):Ms.C RekhakumariFor Respondent(s):Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (taxes)ORDERThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 27.03.2023, passed by the respondent relating to the Financial Year 2019-2020 and to quash the same. 2.Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 3.By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21002 of 20254.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, the petitioner have not received any physical copy of the show cause notice and also personal hearing notice. The show cause notice dated 29.12.2022 was uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 27.03.2023 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that after knowing about the impugned assessment order being passed, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned assessment order by depositing 10% statutory deposit, but, the appeal got rejected vide order dated 05.05.2025 on the ground of limitation. Further, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay another 15% of the disputed tax demand, in addition to the 10% deposit already made in respect of the impugned assessment period and prayed to set aside the impugned order directing the 2nd respondent to permit the petitioner to file their reply and provide an opportunity of personal hearing so that the petitioner would be able to substantiate their case. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21002 of 2025 5.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that as per the voluntary submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, subject to the deposit of another 15% of the disputed tax demand by the petitioner in addition to the 10% deposit already made in respect of the impugned assessment period, if the Court feels it appropriate and it is a fit case for re-consideration, this Court may consider and pass orders.6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the repondents and perused the materials available on record. 7.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned 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 and the original of the said show cause notice https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21002 of 2025was not furnished 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. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21002 of 2025Officer 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. 9.Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the following directions:-(i) The order impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration, on condition that the petitioner deposits 15% of the disputed tax amount, in addition to the 10% deposit already made in respect of the impugned assessment period, as agreed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(ii) In view of the setting aside the impugned assessment order dated 27.03.2023, the rejection of appeal order dated 05.05.2025 is hereby quashed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21002 of 2025(iii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.(iv) 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. 10.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.16-06-2025rstIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21002 of 2025To1.The Deputy Commissioner (CT), GST Appeals, Chennai I,Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Vepery Assessment Circle,No. 10, Greams Road, Palaniappa Maligai, Chennai - 600 006. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 21002 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No. 21002 of 2025AND WMP NO. 23736 OF 2025,WMP NO. 23734 OF 202516-06-2025