S Haritha Traders v. The Deputy Commissioner (St)(Gst)(Appeal)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.04.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No.13632 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.15304 & 15306 of 2025 M/s. S.Haritha Traders A Proprietorship Firm, rep. By its Proprietor Mr.K.Sivakumar
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST)(APPEAL) ERODE AND SALEM GOOD AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT INTEGRATED NEW COMMERCIAL TAX BUILDING 3RD FLOOR SF NO. 400/1 7, 8, 46 Pudhur B Village Erode - 638 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VELAKOVIL ASSESMENT CIRCLE TIRUPUR III TIRUPUR TAMILNADU.
...Respondents
Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 2nd Respondent dated 29.12.2023 bearing number ZD331223252661R and quash the same as illegal unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. 1/7
For Petitioner : Mr.S.I. Sharukumar For Respondents : Ms..Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate (T) Order Heard Mr.S.I. Sharukumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms..Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran learned Government Advocate (T) who takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 second respondent dated 29.12.2023 and 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 orders, were merely uploaded in the GST Portal under the ''View Additional Notices Tab'', and not served on the petitioner via. RPAD, 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 2/7
petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed. 3.1 Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and are liable to be aside, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order. 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 order 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 respondents 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. Taking into consideration of the submissions made on either side 3/7
and perusal of record, there is no dispute on the aspect that notices, which culminated in the impugned order were merely uploaded in the GST portal and not served on the petitioner via. RPAD, and same 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 second respondent passed the impugned order without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is nothing but an ex parte order, as the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.
6. 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 passed by the second respondent dated 29.12.2023 is set aside. 4/7
ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration. 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 second 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. 5/7
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17.04.2025 sd Index : yes/no To
1. The Deputy Commissioner (ST) (GST)(APPEAL) ERODE AND SALEM GOOD AND SERVICES TAX DEPARTMENT INTEGRATED NEW COMMERCIAL TAX BUILDING 3RD FLOOR SF NO. 400/1 7, 8, 46 Pudhur B Village Erode - 638 002.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VELAKOVIL ASSESMENT CIRCLE TIRUPUR III TIRUPUR TAMILNADU.
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd 6/7
W.P.No.13632 of 2025 17.04.2025y 7/7