High Court · 2025

WP No. 24403 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 24403 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 27466 OF 2025,WMP NO. 27465 OF 2025G.Anandhi,Proprietor Tvl. JLG Conscom, No.12, TTK Nagar, Irumbuliyur, West Tambaram, Chennai-600 045.Petitioner(s)Vs1.State Tax Officer(ST)Chengalpattu Intelligence Division, No.870/2am 2nd Floor, Kancheepuram, High Road, Thimmavaram, Chengalpattu-603 101.2.Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Tambaram Zone, Commercial Tax Department, 4th Floor, Room No.422, PAPJM Building, No.1Greams Road, Chennai – 600 006.Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24403 of 2025PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned Order bearing Reference No. ZD330125098048E dated 11/01/2025 with the proceedings attached thereto bearing GSTIN. 33AJAPA3616R1ZC/2018-19 dated 09/01/2025, passed by the First Respondent and consequential issuance of Form DRC-13 bearing Reference GSTIN. 33AJAPA3616R1ZC/DCT03/Active/ dated 10/06/2025 issued by the Second Respondent, quash the same.For Petitioner(s):Mr.T.R.RameshFor Respondent(s):Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, Additional Government Pleader (t)ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 11.01.2025, passed by the 1st respondent. 2.Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondent. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24403 of 2025 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 22.06.2024 and a reminder were uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 11.01.2025 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 1st 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. 24403 of 2025 5.Learned Additional Government Pleader 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 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.6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader 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 Additional Government Pleader 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24403 of 2025notice 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 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. 24403 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 1st respondent for fresh consideration 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 shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24403 of 2025(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. (iv) 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 direction 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.07-07-2025rstIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24403 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24403 of 2025To1.State Tax Officer(ST)Chengalpattu Intelligence Division, No.870/2am 2nd Floor, Kancheepuram, High Road, Thimmavaram, Chengalpattu-603 1012.Deputy Commissioner (ST) (FAC)Tambaram Zone, Commercial Tax Department, 4th Floor, Room No.422, PAPJM Building, No.1Greams Road, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 24403 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstW.P.No.24403 of 202507-07-2025