Tvl Sri Gokul Trader v. Deputy State Tax Officer 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.03.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No.7587 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.8508 & 8510 of 2025 Tvl Sri Gokul Trader (Rep by its proprietor Mr.Raja) Shop No.26, Grand Floor, B.T. Market Bargur, Krishnagiri-635 104.
[ PETITIONER ] Vs The Deputy State Tax Officer 1 (Also Known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) Krishnagiri circle -II.
[ RESPONDENT ] Prayer :- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records on the files of the Respondent herein in FORM GST DRC-07 with Reference No. ZD331223131811Y dated 18.12.2023 along with detailed order in DRC 7 in GSTIN-.33APFPR9466K1Z8/2017-18 dated 19.12.2023 for the assessment period 2017-18 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Chandirasekar For Respondent : Ms.P.Selvi Government Advocate (T) 1/6
Order Heard Mr.N.Chandirasekar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate (T) who takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the respondent dated 18.12.2023 in Form GST DRC-07 along with detailed order in DRC 7 dated 19.12.2023 for the assessment period 2017-18 and to quash the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the show cause notice/personal hearing notice, which culminated in the impugned order, were merely uploaded in the GST Portal under the ''View Additional Notices Tab'', hence, the same were unnoticed by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner could not file reply nor appear for the personal hearing, however, without hearing the petitioner, the impugned orders came to be passed.
2/6
3.1 Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned orders suffer from violation of principles of natural justice and are liable to be aside, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned orders. However, it is stated that the petitioner is also ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remands the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration, and thus, prays for appropriate orders.
4. The learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondent fairly submitted that since the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered.
5. I have given due considerations to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.
6. Taking into consideration of the submissions made on either side and perusal of record, there is no dispute on the aspect that notices, which 3/6
culminated in the impugned orders were merely uploaded in the GST portal, which were unnoticed by the petitioner as the petitioner had no occasion to view the Portal then and there, hence, the petitioner could not file reply or appear for the personal hearing. However, the respondent passed the impugned orders without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which are nothing but ex parte orders, as the same suffer from violation of principles of natural justice.
6.1 Thus, once the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit, however, since the petitioner, themselves, have voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, to which, the learned Government Advocate (T) is also agreable, this Court is inclined to pass/issue the following orders/directions:- i) The impugned order dated 18.12.2023 in Form GST DRC-07 along with detailed order in DRC 7 dated 19.12.2023 passed by the respondent are set aside.
ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
4/6
iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves have voluntarily came forward to make such payment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents within a period of two weeks. v) Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law.\
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 10.03.2025 sd Index : yes/no To The Deputy State Tax Officer 1 (Also Known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) Krishnagiri circle -II.
5/6
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd W.P.No.7587 of 2025 10.03.2025 6/6