Health @ Home v. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy and W.M.P.Nos.15567 & 15568 of 2025 Health @ Home Represented by its Partner Mr.G.Balakumaran No.S1, Second floor, 253A, South Extension, 10th Main Road, Pallikaranai, Kancheepuram-600 100.
...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer-I, Medavakkam Assessment Circle No.571, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Dept (South Tower) Room No.232, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC) Tambaram Zone, 4th Floor, Room No.422, No.1 PAPJM Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.
...Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 1/10
praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the first respondent in Form GST DRC-01 dated 18.12.2023 and the consequential order in GSTIN:33AAKFH3496B1Z1/2018-19 dated 27.04.2024 and quash the same as erroneous, arbitrary, barred by limitation and without jurisdiction and further direct the respondent to furnish details in Auto populated GSTR-2A and thereafter take action in accordance with the provisions of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Sundareswaran For Respondents : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran Government Advocate (Taxes)
ORDER
Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), 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 dated 18.12.2023 passed by the first respondent in Form GST DRC-01 dated 2/10
18.12.2023 and the consequential order in GSTIN:33AAKFH3496B1Z1/2018-19 dated 27.04.2024 and for a further direction to the respondents to furnish details in Auto populated GSTR-2A and thereafter take action in accordance with the provisions of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's registration was cancelled on 19.12.2018. Subsequently, the first respondent has issued a show cause notice as well as the reminder notices to the petitioner and the same were uploaded in the GST portal. Since the Petitioner's GST registration was cancelled the petitioner has no occasion to view the GST Portal and therefore not aware of the said notices. Hence, the petitioner could not file its reply. Since the petitioner failed to file reply to the said show cause notice, the first respondent has confirmed the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the present impugned order dated 27.04.2024. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent passed the attachment order dated 28.01.2025 attaching the bank account of the petitioner. The petitioner came to know of the impugned order. Only after 3/10
getting information from the Karur Vysya Bank, regarding the impugned assessment order, the petitioner came to know of the impugned order ,
4. Further, he would submit that the impugned order 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 order. 4.1. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 10% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration. He would further submit that there is bank attachment and the same may be lifted, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax. Hence, he prayed for appropriate directions.
5. The learned Government Advocate (Taxes) for the respondents fairly submitted that since the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 10% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may 4/10
be considered.
6. 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.
7. 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 5/10
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.
8. 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 order with terms, by issuing the following directions:- i) The impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 27.04.2024 is set aside.
6/10
ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration.
iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 10% 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 first 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. vi) Upon production of proof with regard to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax made by the petitioner, the first respondent-Department is 7/10
directed to issue appropriate direction on the petitioner's banker towards defreezure of the petitioner's bank account forthwith.
9. With the above observations & directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
21.04.2025 (1/2) arr Index : yes/no 8/10
To
1. The Deputy State Tax Officer-I, Medavakkam Assessment Circle No.571, Integrated Commercial Taxes and Registration Dept (South Tower) Room No.232, 2nd Floor, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai-600 035.
2. The Deputy Commissioner (ST)(FAC) Tambaram Zone, 4th Floor, Room No.422, No.1 PAPJM Greams Road, Chennai-600 006.
9/10
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., arr W.P.No.13855 of 2025 21.04.2025 10/10