High Court · 2025
Case Details
Acts & Sections
W.P.No.21648 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.06.2025CORAMThe HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWrit Petition No.21648 of 2025 and WMP.Nos.24435 & 24436 of 2025Tvl. Selvanayagi Agency, GSTIN: 33BEBPP9742J1Z7, Represented by its Proprietor G. Parandhaman, 72D, Tirupattur Main Road, Koratti, Vellore - 635 602. ...PetitionerVs.The State Tax Officer, Thiruppattur Assessment Circle, Integrated GST Office, Pudupet Main Road, Thiruppathur - 635 601, Vellore - 635 602. ...RespondentWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in GST DRC 07 bearing reference number ZD330824101718F/2021-22 dated 13.08.2024 issued by the sole respondent and quash the same. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.G.Derrick Sam For Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj Special Government Pleader (Taxes) ***O R D E R Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 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 dated 13.08.2024 passed by the respondent for the AY 2021-22 and to quash the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent has issued a show cause notice on 20.06.2024, followed by reminder notices dated 27.06.2024, 08.07.2024 and 31.07.2024 to the petitioner, by uploading the same in the GST portal without serving physical copy of the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice and failed to submit reply. Since the petitioner 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025failed to file reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent has confirmed the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the present impugned order. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order. 3.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration. He would further submit that there is bank attachment and the same may be lifted, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax. Hence, he prayed for appropriate directions.4. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondent fairly submitted that since the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025petitioner 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 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 was not furnished to them. 6. 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025way 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 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.7. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively 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. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the following directions:-i) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 13.08.2024 is set aside. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025ii)Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves had 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. v) Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. vi) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, the respondent-Department is 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025directed to issue appropriate direction on the petitioner's banker towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account forthwith. 8. With the above observations & directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 19.06.2025Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No arrToThe State Tax Officer, Thiruppattur Assessment Circle, Integrated GST Office, Pudupet Main Road, Thiruppathur - 635 601, Vellore - 635 602.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.arrWrit Petition No.21648 of 2025 and WMP.Nos.24435 & 24436 of 202519.06.20258/8
W.P.No.21648 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 19.06.2025CORAMThe HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWrit Petition No.21648 of 2025 and WMP.Nos.24435 & 24436 of 2025Tvl. Selvanayagi Agency, GSTIN: 33BEBPP9742J1Z7, Represented by its Proprietor G. Parandhaman, 72D, Tirupattur Main Road, Koratti, Vellore - 635 602. ...PetitionerVs.The State Tax Officer, Thiruppattur Assessment Circle, Integrated GST Office, Pudupet Main Road, Thiruppathur - 635 601, Vellore - 635 602. ...RespondentWrit Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in GST DRC 07 bearing reference number ZD330824101718F/2021-22 dated 13.08.2024 issued by the sole respondent and quash the same. 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025For Petitioner : Mr.G.Derrick Sam For Respondents : Mr.C.Harsha Raj Special Government Pleader (Taxes) ***O R D E R Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 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 dated 13.08.2024 passed by the respondent for the AY 2021-22 and to quash the same. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent has issued a show cause notice on 20.06.2024, followed by reminder notices dated 27.06.2024, 08.07.2024 and 31.07.2024 to the petitioner, by uploading the same in the GST portal without serving physical copy of the same to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice and failed to submit reply. Since the petitioner 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025failed to file reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent has confirmed the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the present impugned order. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order. 3.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration. He would further submit that there is bank attachment and the same may be lifted, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax. Hence, he prayed for appropriate directions.4. The learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes) for the respondent fairly submitted that since the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025petitioner 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 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 was not furnished to them. 6. 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025way 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 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.7. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively 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. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the following directions:-i) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 13.08.2024 is set aside. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025ii)Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves had 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. v) Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. vi) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, the respondent-Department is 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025directed to issue appropriate direction on the petitioner's banker towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account forthwith. 8. With the above observations & directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 19.06.2025Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation: Yes / No Speaking Order : Yes / No arrToThe State Tax Officer, Thiruppattur Assessment Circle, Integrated GST Office, Pudupet Main Road, Thiruppathur - 635 601, Vellore - 635 602.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.21648 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.arrWrit Petition No.21648 of 2025 and WMP.Nos.24435 & 24436 of 202519.06.20258/8