Subramaniam Viswanathan v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.06.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No.16856 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.19112 & 19114 of 2025 SUBRAMANIAM VISWANATHAN NO. 29 , VINAYAGAR KOIL STREET OTHAKKALMANDAPAM, COIMBATORE - 641 032.
...Petitioner
Vs.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) KUNIYAMUTHUR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE COIMBATORE.
...Respondent
Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash impugned order passed by the Respondent in the proceedings vide Ref No. GSTIN. 33AHFPV4746C1ZD/2019-20 dated 22 August 2024 as arbitrary and in violation of the principle of natural justice and to diirect the Respondent to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders on merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Arunseshan For Respondent : Ms..Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate (T) Order 1/8
Heard Mr.C.Arunseshan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms..Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, 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 22 August 2024 and to quash the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice and other allied reminder notices were merely uploaded in the GST common portal under the head 'Additional Notices and Orders'' which were unknown to the petitioner, hence, the petitioner could not file reply and appear for the personal hearing, however, the respondent, without even affording of an opportunity of personal hearing, passed the impugned order. 3.1 Further, it is contended that the petitioner's GST registration has also been cancelled, therefore, the respondent ought not to have sent notices 2/8
via. e-channel, and hence, impugned assessment order passed by the respondent suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is also ready and willing to pay 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 and allied reminder notices were merely ploaded in the GST common Portal Tab under the head, ''Additional Notices and Orders. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice, since, the petitioner's GST registration 3/8
has been cancelled. Further, the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to the 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, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice. 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, 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.
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.
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, this Court is inclined to pass/issue the following orders/directions:- i) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 22.08.2024 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 5/8
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 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. 10.06.2025 sd Index : yes/no To THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) KUNIYAMUTHUR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE COIMBATORE.
6/8
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd 7/8
W.P.No.16856 of 2025 10.06.2025 8/8