High Court · 2025

WP No. 32008 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 32008 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 35864 OF 2025,WMP NO. 35865 OF 2025,WMP NO. 35863 OF 2025M/s.Sona Novelty,Rep. by its Proprietor, Hari Singh, Having office at No.28, East Street, Tirukovilur, Kallakurichi, District-605 757.Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,Tirukovilur 605 757 , Kallakurichi District.2.The Manager,Karur Vysya Bank, Tirukovilur Branch, Tirukovilur 605 7573.The Branch Manager,Indian Overseas Bank, Kumbakonam Branch, Gandhiadigal Salai, Kumbakonam.Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 bearing in Reference No. ZD330824241162P for FY 2019- 2020 for GST IN 33ADFPH8398N1ZW issued under section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 by the 1st Respondent and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to drop all related proceeding.For Petitioner(s):M/s.D.Engels PandianFor Respondents:Ms.Amirta Poonkodi DinakaranGovernment Advocate for R1 ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 27.08.2024, passed by the respondent relating to the Tax Period 2019-20 and to quash the same. 2.Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. 3.By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 20254.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 10.05.2024 and three reminders were uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period and he has also made an endorsement to that effect and hence, 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 1st respondent 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025appropriate 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 1st repondent and perused the materials available on record. 7.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025 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 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. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025 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 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 1st 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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025the respondents 2 and 3-Banks are directed to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account forthwith. 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.29-08-2025rstIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1.The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerTirukovilur 605 757 , Kallakurichi District.2.The Manager,Karur Vysya Bank, Tirukovilur Branch, Tirukovilur - 605 7573.The Brance Manager,Indian Overseas Bank, Kumbakonam Branch, Gandhiadigal Salai, Kumbakonam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No.32008 of 202529-08-2025

WP No. 32008 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 32008 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 35864 OF 2025,WMP NO. 35865 OF 2025,WMP NO. 35863 OF 2025M/s.Sona Novelty,Rep. by its Proprietor, Hari Singh, Having office at No.28, East Street, Tirukovilur, Kallakurichi, District-605 757.Petitioner(s)Vs1.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer,Tirukovilur 605 757 , Kallakurichi District.2.The Manager,Karur Vysya Bank, Tirukovilur Branch, Tirukovilur 605 7573.The Branch Manager,Indian Overseas Bank, Kumbakonam Branch, Gandhiadigal Salai, Kumbakonam.Respondent(s) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 bearing in Reference No. ZD330824241162P for FY 2019- 2020 for GST IN 33ADFPH8398N1ZW issued under section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 by the 1st Respondent and consequently direct the 1st Respondent to drop all related proceeding.For Petitioner(s):M/s.D.Engels PandianFor Respondents:Ms.Amirta Poonkodi DinakaranGovernment Advocate for R1 ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 27.08.2024, passed by the respondent relating to the Tax Period 2019-20 and to quash the same. 2.Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the 1st respondent. 3.By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 20254.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 10.05.2024 and three reminders were uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 27.08.2024 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period and he has also made an endorsement to that effect and hence, 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 1st respondent 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025appropriate 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 1st repondent and perused the materials available on record. 7.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025 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 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. 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. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025 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 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 1st 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, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025the respondents 2 and 3-Banks are directed to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account forthwith. 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.29-08-2025rstIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/NoTo1.The Deputy Commercial Tax OfficerTirukovilur 605 757 , Kallakurichi District.2.The Manager,Karur Vysya Bank, Tirukovilur Branch, Tirukovilur - 605 7573.The Brance Manager,Indian Overseas Bank, Kumbakonam Branch, Gandhiadigal Salai, Kumbakonam. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32008 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No.32008 of 202529-08-2025