High Court · 2025

W.P.No.31331 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 22.08.2025CORAMTHE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYW.P.No.31331 of 2025& W.M.P.No.35057 of 2025The pollachi co operative urban bank limitedRep by its General Manager, K.R Ramasamy, s/o.R.B.Ramasamy, No.18/79, Udumalpet, Pollachi, Coimbatore ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The State Tax OfficerPollachi (west)circle, Pollachi,Coimbatore-642 0012. the commercial tax officerpollachi west circle pollachi coimbatore3. the branch managerstate bank of india 1 pallakad road pollachi coimbatore... RespondentsPrayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, challenging the impugned order 1/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31331 of 2025passed by the 2nd respondent dated 24.02.2025 in DRC-07 vide Ref No. ZD330225249343N and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits and consequently direct the 3rd respondent bank to revoke the blocking of access to funds from the Petitioners Bank Account number 00000011103894546 and the same within a time to be stipulated by this Honble CourtFor Petitioner: Mr.M.SudhanFor Respondent: Ms.K.Vasanthamala, GAORDERThis writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 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 2/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31331 of 2025GST 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 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. In this regard, he had also made an endorsement in the case bundle. 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 the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to 3/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31331 of 2025remit 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. 8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of 4/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31331 of 2025the 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 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.5/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31331 of 202510. Further, 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 and with regard to the same, he had also made an endorsement in the case bundle. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned order dated 24.02.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 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 respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of 6/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31331 of 2025personal 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) 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 3rd respondent is directed to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of a copy of this order along with the proof of payment as stated above.11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 22.08.2025Speaking/Non-speaking orderIndex : Yes / NoNeutral Citation : Yes / Nonsa7/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31331 of 2025To1. The State Tax OfficerPollachi (west)circle, Pollachi,Coimbatore-642 0012. the commercial tax officerpollachi west circle pollachi coimbatore3. the branch managerstate bank of india 1 pallakad road pollachi coimbatore8/9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.31331 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,nsaW.P.No.31331 of 2025& W.M.P.No.35057 of 202522.08.20259/9