High Court · 2025

W.P.No.26158 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 17.07.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.26158 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.29453, 29454 & 29459 of 2025Meenakshi AgencyRep. by its Proprietor Mr. Munusamy, No.635, Meetu Street, Kandigai, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, 600048. ... Petitioner Vs. The State Tax OfficerThirukazhukundaram Assessment Circle, No.42, Wahab Nagar, Thirukazhukundram -603 109. ...RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records of impugned assessment order passed by the respondent herein in GSTIN 33BZWPM1267P1ZI/2020-21 dated 28.01.2025 vide Reference ID ZD330125262682K for the financial year 2020-2021, to quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pass a fresh 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26158 of 2025order after affording opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case and produce supporting documents For Petitioner: Mr.K.B.HariharanFor Respondent: Mr.C.Harsha Raj, SGPORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the respondent.2. Mr.C.Harsha Raj, learned Special Government Pleader, 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 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 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26158 of 2025circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed. 4. Further, he would submit that the respondent has already recovered a sum of Rs.11,52,187/-, out of total tax liability of Rs.16,29,868/-, from the petitioner. 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 Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he 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.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26158 of 20256. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record. 7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice and subsequent reminders were uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice and the reminders issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice and reminders were 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26158 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.5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26158 of 202510. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has already recovered a sum of Rs.11,52,187/-, out of total tax liability of Rs.16,29,868/-, from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 28.01.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 28.01.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.(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 receipt of a copy of this order.(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. 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26158 of 2025(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the respondent is directed to instruct the concerned bank to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of a copy of this order.11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.17.07.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaToThe State Tax OfficerThirukazhukundaram Assessment Circle, No.42, Wahab Nagar, Thirukazhukundram -603 109. 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.26158 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.26158 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.29453, 29454 & 29459 of 202517.07.20258/8