P E Palaniappa Mudaliar And Sons v. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30-06-2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY AND WMP NO. 26372 OF 2025,WMP NO. 26373 OF 2025 P. E. Palaniappa Mudaliar and Sons Rep. by its Partner C.Vignesh, Palaniappa S/o. Chandrasekar Aged 39 years, 7/11-34, Mariyamman Koil Street, Kolathur, Salem - 636303.

Petitioner(s) Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Mettur Assessment Circe, Salem Division, Zone -II, BSNL Office, DTO Building, Mettur RS, Salem- 636 303.

Respondent(s) PRAYER:_Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari,calling for the records in Reference No. ZD330125266105S dated 29.01.2025 u/s.73 of the TNGST Act, 2017 dated

29.01.2025 along with a summary of the order dated 29.01.2025 in Reference No. ZD330125266105S on the file of the Respondent relating to F.Y.2020-21. For Petitioner(s):

Ms.N.Janani For Respondent(s):

Mrs.K.Vasanthamala Government Advocate (taxes)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment orders dated 29.01.2025, passed by the respondent. 2.Mrs.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondent.

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

08.10.2024 was uploaded in the GST Portal in "View Additional notice and orders tab" and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 29.01.2025 was also uploaded in the GST Portal in "View Additional notice and orders tab", which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the respondent had already recovered tax amount from the petitioner and hence, he prayed to set aside the impugned order directing the respondent 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 respondent would submit that if the Court feels it appropriate and it is a fit case for reconsideration, this Court may consider and pass orders. 6.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the repondent and perused the materials available on record.

7.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent 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.

8.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.

9.Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the following directions:- (i) The orders impugned herein are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration.

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks from the date the portal is made ready for the petitioner to file their reply.

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days 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.

30-06-2025 rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes

To The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Mettur Assessment Circe, Salem Division, Zone -II, BSNL Office, DTO Building, Mettur RS, Salem- 636 303.

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.

rst AND WMP NO. 26372 OF 2025, WMP NO. 26373 OF 2025 30-06-2025