High Court · 2025

W.P.No.30162 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 13.08.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.30162 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.33832 & 33830 of 2025M/s.The Cake World Pastry HubRep by its Partner Nirmal No.24, G/11, Arunachalam Salai, Saligrammam, Chennai-600 093 ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner (st)Saligrammam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, 3rd Floor, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028.2. Deputy State Tax OfficerSaligrammam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, 3rd Floor, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025Respondent No.2 in the impugned Order passed vide Ref.No.ZD3308241250B5K dated 14.08.2024 and quash the same with a consequential direction to the Respondent No.2 to consider the matter afresh by granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner For Petitioner: Mr.P.Jitendra KumarFor Respondent: Ms.K.Vasanthamala, GAORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the respondent.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. The GST matters were handled by an erstwhile consultant, who has provided his mobile number and e-mail id as 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025credentials to log in the GST portal. Since the said consultant was out of reach from the petitioner, petitioner was unable to login to their GST Account, due to which, being unaware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, 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 petitioner is willing to pay 25% 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, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025the 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 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. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 20258. 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. 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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025RPAD, 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, according to the petitioner that the GST matters were handled by an erstwhile consultant, who has provided his mobile number and e-mail id as credentials to log in the GST portal. Now, the said consultant was out of reach from the petitioner, due to which, they were unable to login to their GST Account. 11. In view of the above submission, this Court directs the respondent to consider the request, if any, made by the petitioner with regard to the change of mobile number or any other details, so as to enable them to log into their GST Account and upload their reply. 12. That apart, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 14.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% 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.(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 payment of amount as stated above.(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the 2nd 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. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 202511. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.13.08.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaTo1. Assistant Commissioner (st)Saligrammam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, 3rd Floor, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028.2. Deputy State Tax OfficerSaligrammam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, 3rd Floor, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 0288/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.30162 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.33832 & 33830 of 202513.08.20259/9

W.P.No.30162 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 13.08.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.30162 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.33832 & 33830 of 2025M/s.The Cake World Pastry HubRep by its Partner Nirmal No.24, G/11, Arunachalam Salai, Saligrammam, Chennai-600 093 ... Petitioner Vs. 1. Assistant Commissioner (st)Saligrammam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, 3rd Floor, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028.2. Deputy State Tax OfficerSaligrammam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, 3rd Floor, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025Respondent No.2 in the impugned Order passed vide Ref.No.ZD3308241250B5K dated 14.08.2024 and quash the same with a consequential direction to the Respondent No.2 to consider the matter afresh by granting sufficient opportunity to the petitioner For Petitioner: Mr.P.Jitendra KumarFor Respondent: Ms.K.Vasanthamala, GAORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the respondent.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. The GST matters were handled by an erstwhile consultant, who has provided his mobile number and e-mail id as 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025credentials to log in the GST portal. Since the said consultant was out of reach from the petitioner, petitioner was unable to login to their GST Account, due to which, being unaware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, 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 petitioner is willing to pay 25% 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, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025the 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 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. 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 20258. 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. 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 5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025RPAD, 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, according to the petitioner that the GST matters were handled by an erstwhile consultant, who has provided his mobile number and e-mail id as credentials to log in the GST portal. Now, the said consultant was out of reach from the petitioner, due to which, they were unable to login to their GST Account. 11. In view of the above submission, this Court directs the respondent to consider the request, if any, made by the petitioner with regard to the change of mobile number or any other details, so as to enable them to log into their GST Account and upload their reply. 12. That apart, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 14.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% 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.(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 payment of amount as stated above.(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the 2nd 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. 7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 202511. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.13.08.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / NonsaTo1. Assistant Commissioner (st)Saligrammam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, 3rd Floor, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 028.2. Deputy State Tax OfficerSaligrammam Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Department, 3rd Floor, Bishop Garden, Greenways Road, Chennai-600 0288/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.30162 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.30162 of 2025& W.M.P.Nos.33832 & 33830 of 202513.08.20259/9