Pallav Interiors v. The Deputy State Tax Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.06.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy and W.M.P.Nos.18302 & 18303 of 2025 Pallav Interiors, Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.M.Hindocha Sagar Block L-78, Merwin Hook Complex, 18th Street, Anna Nagar East, Chennai- 600 102.
...Petitioner
Vs.
The Deputy State Tax Officer, (Formerly known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) NUNGAMBAKKAM: CENTRAL-III:
CHENNAI CENTRAL No.88 Mayor Ramanathan Salai, Chetput, Chennai 600 031.
...Respondent
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records relating to the impugned order in Reference No.ZD330224120645T/20181/8
19 dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Respondent and the consequential rejection order bearing Reference No.ZD330325071229H/2018-19 DATED:12.03.2025 passed by the Respondent, and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal.
For Petitioner : Ms.V.Vijayalakshmi For Respondent : Ms.P.Selvi Government Advocate (Taxes) Order Ms.P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), 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 dated 21.02.2024 passed by the respondent and the consequential rejection order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the respondent and to quash the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent has issued a show cause notice on 11.10.2023 followed by reminder on 22.01.2024 and the same was uploaded in the GST portal. The 2/8
petitioner was not aware of those notices and file reply.. Since the petitioner failed to file reply to the said show cause notice, the respondent has confirmed the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the present impugned assessment order. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application for rectification of the impugned order, which was also rejected by the respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned orders suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned orders.
3.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) 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 3/8
be considered.
5. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side 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.
6. 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 4/8
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.
7. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned orders with terms, by issuing the following directions:- i) The orders impugned herein are set aside. ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
5/8
iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves had 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.
8. With the above observations & directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
02.06.2025 arr Index : yes/no 6/8
To The Deputy State Tax Officer, (Formerly known as Deputy Commercial Tax Officer) NUNGAMBAKKAM: CENTRAL-III:
CHENNAI CENTRAL No.88 Mayor Ramanathan Salai, Chetput, Chennai 600 031.
7/8
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., arr 02.06.2025 8/8