High Court · 2025

W.P.No.24153 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 07.07.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.24153 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.27168 & 27170 of 2025 Aim Associates,Rep. by its Prop.Puranmal Mangilal Jangid,T2-601, Ananda North Town Estate,Stephenson Road,Perambur, Chennai,Tamil Nadu - 600 012. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC), GST Appeal, Chennai - 1, C.T.Annexe Building, 2nd Floor, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1, Purasawakkam Assessment Circle Station: No.1 PAPJM Annex Building, IIIrd Floor Gream's Road, Chennai - 600 006.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to order in Reference No.ZD330824135348A dated 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 202516.08.2024 passed by the second respondent and Memorandum vide Rc.No.20/2025/A1 dated 24.03.2025 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to accept the statutory appeal dated 01.01.2025 filed under Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017 against demand order of the second respondent in Reference No.ZD330824135348A dated 16.08.2024 without reference to limitation.For Petitioner : Mr.Hariharan.VFor Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Government Advocate (T)ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 & 24.03.2025 passed by the respondents.2. Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the second 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 came to be passed by the second respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, with a delay of 17 days, which was also rejected by the first respondent on 24.03.2025 on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved over the said orders, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned orders. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, she has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. Due to which, he was not filed the appeal on time. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 came to be passed without affording any opportunity 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025of 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. 9. 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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025strictly 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. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 16.08.2024 & 24.03.2025 respectively, passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned orders dated 16.08.2024 & 24.03.2025 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.(iii) 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. 11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.07.07.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / Novm7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,vmTo1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC), GST Appeal, Chennai - 1, C.T.Annexe Building, 2nd Floor, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1, Purasawakkam Assessment Circle Station: No.1 PAPJM Annex Building, IIIrd Floor Gream's Road, Chennai - 600 006.W.P.No.24153 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.27168 & 27170 of 2025 07.07.20258/8

W.P.No.24153 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 07.07.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.24153 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.27168 & 27170 of 2025 Aim Associates,Rep. by its Prop.Puranmal Mangilal Jangid,T2-601, Ananda North Town Estate,Stephenson Road,Perambur, Chennai,Tamil Nadu - 600 012. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC), GST Appeal, Chennai - 1, C.T.Annexe Building, 2nd Floor, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1, Purasawakkam Assessment Circle Station: No.1 PAPJM Annex Building, IIIrd Floor Gream's Road, Chennai - 600 006.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to order in Reference No.ZD330824135348A dated 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 202516.08.2024 passed by the second respondent and Memorandum vide Rc.No.20/2025/A1 dated 24.03.2025 passed by the first respondent and quash the same and to direct the first respondent to accept the statutory appeal dated 01.01.2025 filed under Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017 against demand order of the second respondent in Reference No.ZD330824135348A dated 16.08.2024 without reference to limitation.For Petitioner : Mr.Hariharan.VFor Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Government Advocate (T)ORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 & 24.03.2025 passed by the respondents.2. Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the second 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025respondent under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 came to be passed by the second respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has preferred an appeal, with a delay of 17 days, which was also rejected by the first respondent on 24.03.2025 on the ground of limitation. Aggrieved over the said orders, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned orders. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, she has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record. 7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. Due to which, he was not filed the appeal on time. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 came to be passed without affording any opportunity 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025of 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. 9. 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 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025strictly 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. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 16.08.2024 & 24.03.2025 respectively, passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned orders dated 16.08.2024 & 24.03.2025 are set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.(iii) 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. 11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.07.07.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / Novm7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.24153 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,vmTo1.The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC), GST Appeal, Chennai - 1, C.T.Annexe Building, 2nd Floor, No.1, Greams Road, Chennai - 600 006.2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-1, Purasawakkam Assessment Circle Station: No.1 PAPJM Annex Building, IIIrd Floor Gream's Road, Chennai - 600 006.W.P.No.24153 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.27168 & 27170 of 2025 07.07.20258/8