High Court · 2025

W.P.No.26335 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 22.07.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.26335 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.29640 & 29639 of 2025Kariyakalliamman FruitsRep By Its Partner, Thiru.N.Natarajan, Old No.11, New No.44 Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Chennai-600 093 ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner(st)Saligramam Assessment Circle, Room No.307, 3rd Floor, Mylapore Taluk Office, Green Ways Road, Chennai-600 0282. Deputy Commissioner (ST)GST Appeal, Chennai -1, Greams Road Main Building, 2nd Floor, Chennai...RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned order in DRC-07 Ref.No.ZD3308241932169 dated 22.08.2024 and appeal 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025rejection order in Form APL-02 in reference number ZD330525045700P dated 07.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same For Petitioner: Ms.T.Yazhlini For Mr.Suresh TFor Respondent: Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, GAORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 22.08.2024 and the appeal rejection order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the respondents.2. Ms.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 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 respondent 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 assessment order came to be passed by the 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved over the said impugned assessment order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, however, the same was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 07.05.2025 on the aspect of limitation. Therefore, this petition has been filed. 4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner has already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay additional 15% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices 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 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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. 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 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025etc., 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 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. 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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025petitioner that the petitioner has already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay additional 15% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection order dated 07.05.2025 and to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned rejection order dated 07.05.2025 is quashed.(ii) The impugned assessment order dated 22.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 15% of the 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.(iii) 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.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025(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.11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.22.07.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaTo1. Assistant Commissioner(st)Saligramam Assessment Circle, Room No.307, 3rd Floor, Mylapore Taluk Office, Green Ways Road, Chennai-600 0282. Deputy Commissioner (ST)GST Appeal, Chennai -1, Greams Road Main 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025Building, 2nd Floor, Chennai8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.26335 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.29640 & 29639 of 202522.07.20259/9

W.P.No.26335 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 22.07.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.26335 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.29640 & 29639 of 2025Kariyakalliamman FruitsRep By Its Partner, Thiru.N.Natarajan, Old No.11, New No.44 Arunachalam Road, Saligramam, Chennai-600 093 ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner(st)Saligramam Assessment Circle, Room No.307, 3rd Floor, Mylapore Taluk Office, Green Ways Road, Chennai-600 0282. Deputy Commissioner (ST)GST Appeal, Chennai -1, Greams Road Main Building, 2nd Floor, Chennai...RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the impugned order in DRC-07 Ref.No.ZD3308241932169 dated 22.08.2024 and appeal 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025rejection order in Form APL-02 in reference number ZD330525045700P dated 07.05.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same For Petitioner: Ms.T.Yazhlini For Mr.Suresh TFor Respondent: Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, GAORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 22.08.2024 and the appeal rejection order dated 07.05.2025 passed by the respondents.2. Ms.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. 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 respondent 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 assessment order came to be passed by the 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Aggrieved over the said impugned assessment order, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner, however, the same was rejected by the respondent vide order dated 07.05.2025 on the aspect of limitation. Therefore, this petition has been filed. 4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner has already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay additional 15% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices 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 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 15% of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and 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. 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 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025etc., 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 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. 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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025petitioner that the petitioner has already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount at the time of filing the appeal and now, he is willing to pay additional 15% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the rejection order dated 07.05.2025 and to set aside the impugned assessment order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the respondents. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned rejection order dated 07.05.2025 is quashed.(ii) The impugned assessment order dated 22.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 15% of the 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.(iii) 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.6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025(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.11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.22.07.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaTo1. Assistant Commissioner(st)Saligramam Assessment Circle, Room No.307, 3rd Floor, Mylapore Taluk Office, Green Ways Road, Chennai-600 0282. Deputy Commissioner (ST)GST Appeal, Chennai -1, Greams Road Main 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025Building, 2nd Floor, Chennai8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26335 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.26335 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.29640 & 29639 of 202522.07.20259/9