High Court · 2025

W.P.No.28742 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 05.08.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.28742 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.32188 & 32189 of 2025 M/s.Taj Restaurant,Rep. by its Partner,Abdul Saleem Manammal,No.2/105, Mount Poonamallee Road,Kathipakkam, Chennai.... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Poonamallee Assessment Circle, No.4/109, 3rd Floor, Bangalore Chennai Highway, Varadarajapuram, Nazarathpet, Chennai - 600 123.2.The Deputy Commissioner, Poonamallee Zone, Integrated Building for Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Chennai Highway, Varadarajapuram, Nazarathpet, Chennai - 600 123.... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28742 of 2025the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the first respondent against the petitioner's firm vide GSTIN-33AAMFT6650P1ZH for the Assessment year 2020-2021 and quash the same.For Petitioner : Mr.K.M.MalarmannanFor Respondents : Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, Government AdvocateORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the respondent.2. Mrs.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 first respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28742 of 2025notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the first 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 more than 50% of the entire disputed tax amount from the petitioner. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondents by setting aside the impugned order. 5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the first 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 the matter back to the respondent.3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28742 of 20256. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Government Advocate appearing 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 etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28742 of 2025possibility 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.28742 of 202510. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent has already recovered more than 50% of the disputed tax amount from the petitioner. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the first respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 17.02.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondents 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 respondents 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.28742 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 respondents are directed to instruct the concerned Bank to de-freeze the attachment made on the petitioner's bank account, immediately upon the production of a copy of this order.With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.05.08.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NovmTo1.The Deputy State Tax Officer-II, Poonamallee Assessment Circle, No.4/109, 3rd Floor, Bangalore Chennai Highway, Varadarajapuram, Nazarathpet, Chennai - 600 123.7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.28742 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,vm2.The Deputy Commissioner, Poonamallee Zone, Integrated Building for Commercial Taxes, Bangalore Chennai Highway, Varadarajapuram, Nazarathpet, Chennai - 600 123.W.P.No.28742 of 2025and W.M.P.Nos.32188 & 32189 of 2025 05.08.20258/8