High Court · 2025

WP No. 25347 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 14-07-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 25347 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 28527 OF 2025,WMP NO. 28525 OF 2025,WMP NO. 28526 OF 2025M/s.Saravanan Control Systems,Represented by its proprietor,Gajendran Saravanan, No 22/3, Rajiv Gandhi Street, Ayakolathur , Thodukadu post, Kancheepuram 602 105.Petitioner(s)Vs1. The Deputy State Tax Officer (FAC),Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle.2.The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Kanchipuram Zone,The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Kanchipuram Zone, 1st Floor, Commercial Taxes Building, Collectorate Campus, Kanchipuram 631 501. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 20253.The Bank Manager, Bank of India,No. 150, Shanti Complex, 1 and 151/2, Chennai- Bangalore Highway, SriSaiLaksmiNagar, Nenmeli, Sriperumbudur - 602105.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 impugned proceedings of the first respondent in GSTIN 33BMGPS0191D1ZA /2020-21 dated 22.02.2025 and the connected order under Section 73 dated 22.02.2025 and the summary of the order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 22.02.2025 issued in Reference No ZD330225226089K and quash the same as passed contrary to the provisions of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 read with the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and also passed in contrary to the principles of natural justice.For Petitioner(s):Mr.Benuel Ritesh RajkumarFor Respondent(s):Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate (taxes) For Rr1 And 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 2025ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 22.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent. 2.Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. 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 petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 22.02.2025 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 2025and 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. 5.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 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 Government Advocate appearing for the repondents 1 and 2 and perused the materials available on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 2025 7.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 2025service, 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 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 2025consideration 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.(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 3rd respondent-Bank is directed to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account forthwith. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 2025 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.14-07-2025rstIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 2025To1.The Deputy State Etax Officer(fac)Sriperumbudur Assessment Circle2.The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Kanchipuram Zone,The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Kanchipuram Zone, 1st Floor, Commercial Taxes Building, Collectorate Campus, Kanchipuram 631 5013.The Bank Manager, Bankof India,No. 150, Shanti Complex, 1 and 151/2, Chennai- Bangalore Highway, SriSaiLaksmiNagar, Nenmeli, Sriperumbudur, 602105 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 25347 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No. 25347 of 2025AND WMP NO. 28527 OF 2025,WMP NO. 28525 OF 2025,WMP NO. 28526 OF 202514-07-2025