Tvl. Tatyya Concrete Works v. The State Tax Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.06.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No. 17031 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.19322 & 19324 of 2025 TVL. TATYYA CONCRETE WORKS REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR VIRUTHAMBAL NO. 71 SIVAN KOVIL STREET, CHINNASALEM KALLAKURICHI, VILLUPURAM DISTRICT.
..Petitioner Vs.
THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INSPECTION - III) CUDDALORE ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST) (INTELLIGENCE) CUDDALORE.
Respondent Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records on the files of the Respondent pertaining to GSTIN : 33AEWPV1068B1ZB/2020-21 order dated 30.01.2024 quash the same as illegal and consequently, to direct the respondent to consider the matter afresh after providing opportunity of hearing and dispose the case on merits For Petitioner : Mr.S.Rajesh For Respondent : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (T) 1/7
Order Heard Mr.S.Rajesh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, 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 30.01.2024 and to quash the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice and other reminder notices were uploaded on the GST on-line portal and was not served directly to the petitioner through physical mode of service, hence, the petitioner, who was unaware of the said notices failed to file reply to such show cause notice and appear before the respondent however, the respondent, without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
2/7
3.1 Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside. However, it is stated 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 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 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. 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 which was uploaded through the GST Portal. Further, the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to the 3/7
petitioner in person. 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. 5.1 No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who finds no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices, instead of sending repeated reminders, 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, the service of notice will not be deemed to 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 would 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.
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.
6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, as the same suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice. 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, considering the fact that the petitioner has come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in the event the impugned order is set aside, to which course, the learned Government Advocate (T), this Court is inclined to pass/issue the following orders/directions:- i) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 30.01.2024 is set aside.
ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the 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 5/7
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. and v) Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a 14 clear 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. 03.06.2025 sd Index : yes/no To THE STATE TAX OFFICER (INSPECTION - III) CUDDALORE ASSESSMENT CIRCLE, OFFICE OF THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ST) (INTELLIGENCE) CUDDALORE.
6/7
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd W.P.No. 17031 of 2025 03.06.2025 7/7