High Court · 2025

WP No. 23468 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 30-06-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 23468 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 26331 OF 2025,WMP NO. 26333 OF 2025M/s.KR Technologies,Represented by its proprietor, K. Rajendran No 5/288 1A, Near Arasur Power House, Arasur, Coimbatore 641 407.Petitioner(s)VsCommercial Tax Officier,Karumathampatti, Coimbatore III, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu.Respondent(s)PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the respondent vide his Order of Assessment bearing Reference No ZD330225080431T in GSTIN No. 33ACJPR7647D1ZF/2020-21 dated 08.02.2025 and to quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 23468 of 2025For Petitioner(s):Mr.G.SaravananFor Respondent(s):Mr.C.Harsha Raj Spl. Govt. Pleader (taxes)ORDERThis writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 08.02.2025, passed by the respondent. 2.Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 3.By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.4.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 25.11.2024 and two reminders were uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 23468 of 2025petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal and since the petitioner's accountant also failed to inform about the assessment proceedings, the petitioner was aware of the same. Even the impugned order dated 08.02.2025 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period and prayed to set aside the impugned order directing the 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. 5.Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that as per the voluntary submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax demand by the petitioner 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 23468 of 20256.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the repondent 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 Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 23468 of 2025response 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 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 23468 of 2025impugned order with terms, by issuing the following directions:-(i) The order impugned herein is set aside on condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount 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) The petitioner is at liberty to make the aforesaid 25% deposit after deducting the amount, whichever paid subsequent to the passing of the impugned assessment order.(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. (v) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, the respondent-Department is directed to issue appropriate https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 23468 of 2025direction on the petitioner's banker towards de-freezure of the petitioner's bank account forthwith. 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.30-06-2025rstIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 23468 of 2025ToCommercial Tax OfficierKarumathampatti, Coimbatore III, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 23468 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No. 23468 of 2025AND WMP NO. 26331 OF 2025,WMP NO. 26333 OF 202530-06-2025