N Sasikumar v. The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax)(Fac)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY AND WMP NO. 19069 OF 2025,WMP NO. 19070 OF 2025 N.Sasikumar, S/o.NAchimuthu, 101D, S.S Lakshmi Complex, South Street, Avalpoondurai Erode, Erode 638 115.

Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax)(FAC), Goods and Service Tax (Appeal), Appellate Authority, Pudur B Village, Erode 638 002. 2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax Officer, Kodumudi, Karur, Erode.

Respondent(s) PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned summary order dated 01.04.2024 in DRC-07 vide Ref.

No. ZD330424005439M passed by the 2nd respondent and the consequential dismissal of the Impugned appeal order dated 26.10.2024 vide Ref No. ZD331024202350C passed by the 1st Respondent and to quash the same as arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice and total inconformity with the provisions of the GST Act, 2017 and consequently direct the 1st respondent to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits. For Petitioner(s):

Ms.R.Reshma For Respondent(s):

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate (t)

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking to call for the records of the impugned summary order dated 01.04.2024 in DRC-07 vide nd respondent and the Ref. No. ZD330424005439M passed by the 2 consequential dismissal of the Impugned appeal order dated 26.10.2024 vide st respondent and to quash the same.

Ref No. ZD331024202350C passed by the 1 2.Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3.By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the present case, the petitioner have not received any physical copy of the show cause notice and also personal hearing notice. The show cause notice dated 21.10.2023 was uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned assessment order dated 01.04.2024 was also uploaded in the GST portal tab, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner after knowing about the impugned assessment order being passed by the 2 nd respondent, had preferred an appeal before the 1 st respondent by paying 10% statutory deposit of the disputed tax demand. However, the appeal got rejected on the ground of limitation vide order dated 26.10.2024. Hence, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay another 15% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period and prayed to set aside the impugned orders with a directions to permit the petitioner to file their reply and provide an

opportunity of personal hearing so that the petitioner would be able to substantiate their case.

5.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that as per the voluntary submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, subject to the deposit of 15% of the disputed tax demand in addition to the 10% depsoite already being made by the petitioner in respect of the impugned assessment period, if the Court feels it appropriate and it is a fit case for re-consideration, this Court may consider and pass orders. 6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate and perused the materials available on record. 7.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. 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 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.Thus, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assssment order dated 01.04.2024 came to be passed without affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to establish their case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and that it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits and in accordance with law.

9.For the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the nd respondent and impugned assessment order dated 01.04.2024 passed by the 2 st quash the impugned appeal rejection order dated 26.10.2024 passed by the 1 respondents Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned appeal rejection order dated 26.10.2024 is hereby quashed and the impugned assessment order dated 01.04.2024 is hereby set aside and the matter is nd respondent for fresh consideration remanded back to the 2 on condition that the petitioner deposits 15% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period in addition to the 10% deposit already made, as agreed by the

petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, nd respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days the 2 clear notice by fixing the date of personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.

10.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

03-06-2025 rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To 1.The Deputy Commissioner (Commercial Tax)(FAC), Goods and Service Tax (Appeal), Appellate Authority, Pudur B Village Erode 638 002.

2.The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer State Tax Officer, Kodumudi, Karur, Erode.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

rst AND WMP NO. 19069 OF 2025,WMP NO. 19070 OF 2025 03-06-2025