High Court · 2025

WP No. 32078 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 32078 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 35959 OF 2025,WMP NO. 35964 OF 2025M/s AJAY ENTERPRISES, Represented by its Proprietor, R Rajendran,No.26/1A3, 26/3A3, Manali New Town, Sadayankuppam, Chennai-600 103.Petitioner(s)Vs1.The State Tax Officer, Tondiarpet Assessment Circle,No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tondiarpet Assessment Circle,No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.Respondent(s)PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025to the Impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in order Ref.No.ZD330225135497F dated 14.02.2025 against the petitioner-s firm vide GSTIN-33AJEPR5823R1ZM, for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 and Quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.For Petitioner(s):Mr.K.M.MalarmannanFor Respondent:Ms.Amirta Poonkodi DinakaranGovernment Advocate ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 14.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21 and to quash the same. 2.Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 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. 32078 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 25.10.2024 and two reminders were uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the respondents have recovered more than 50% of the disputed tax demand from the petitioner and 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 respondents would submit that if the Court feels it appropriate and it is a fit case for re-consideration, this Court may consider and pass orders. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 20256.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 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 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025response 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025impugned order, by issuing the following directions:-(i) The order impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration.(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(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) 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 lifted. The respondents are directed to instruct the Bank to unfreeze the Bank account of the petitioner immediately upon the production of a copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025 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 State Tax Officer, Tondiarpet Assessment Circle,No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tondiarpet Assessment Circle,No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No. 32078 of 2025AND WMP NO. 35959 OF 2025,WMP NO. 35964 OF 202529-08-2025

WP No. 32078 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 29-08-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMYWP No. 32078 of 2025ANDWMP NO. 35959 OF 2025,WMP NO. 35964 OF 2025M/s AJAY ENTERPRISES, Represented by its Proprietor, R Rajendran,No.26/1A3, 26/3A3, Manali New Town, Sadayankuppam, Chennai-600 103.Petitioner(s)Vs1.The State Tax Officer, Tondiarpet Assessment Circle,No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tondiarpet Assessment Circle,No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.Respondent(s)PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records pertaining https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025to the Impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in order Ref.No.ZD330225135497F dated 14.02.2025 against the petitioner-s firm vide GSTIN-33AJEPR5823R1ZM, for the Assessment Year 2020-2021 and Quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice.For Petitioner(s):Mr.K.M.MalarmannanFor Respondent:Ms.Amirta Poonkodi DinakaranGovernment Advocate ORDER This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 14.02.2025, passed by the 1st respondent relating to the Assessment Year 2020-21 and to quash the same. 2.Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 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. 32078 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 25.10.2024 and two reminders were uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 14.02.2025 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the respondents have recovered more than 50% of the disputed tax demand from the petitioner and 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 respondents would submit that if the Court feels it appropriate and it is a fit case for re-consideration, this Court may consider and pass orders. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 20256.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 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 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025response 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. 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 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025impugned order, by issuing the following directions:-(i) The order impugned herein is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the 1st respondent for fresh consideration.(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.(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) 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 lifted. The respondents are directed to instruct the Bank to unfreeze the Bank account of the petitioner immediately upon the production of a copy of this order. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025 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 State Tax Officer, Tondiarpet Assessment Circle,No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003.2.The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Tondiarpet Assessment Circle,No.32, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Chennai-600 003. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 32078 of 2025KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.rstWP No. 32078 of 2025AND WMP NO. 35959 OF 2025,WMP NO. 35964 OF 202529-08-2025