Ganthimathi v. The Commercial State Tax Officer
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01-08-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY AND WMP NO. 30913 OF 2025,WMP NO. 30916 OF 2025 Ganthimathi Proprietor, M/s.Hi Tech Engineering, No.2/109 Nattamangalam Main Road Salam- 636 010.
Petitioner(s) Vs 1.The Commercial State Tax Officer, Salem Division, Hasthampatti, Salem.
2.The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Salem - I Division, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Hasthampatti, Salem.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Kondalampatty Assessment Circle, Salem - I Division, Salem.
Respondent(s)
PRAYER:-Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 made in Reference No. ZD330225049303T passed by the 3rd respondent and to quash the same. For Petitioner(s):
Mr.M.Neelakandan For Respondent(s):
Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate (taxes)
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 05.02.2025, passed by the 3 rd respondent relating to the Financial Year 2020-21 and to quash the same. 2.Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, 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 23.11.2024 was uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned order dated 05.02.2025 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax demand in respect of the impugned assessment period and 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.
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 appearing for the repondents 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 respondents 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 order impugned herein is set aside and the rd respondent for fresh matter is remanded back to the 3 consideration on condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period, 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, 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.
01-08-2025 rst Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes To 1.The Commercial State Tax Officer, Salem Division, Hasthampatti, Salem.
2.The Deputy Commissioner (ST), Salem - I Division, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building, Hasthampatti, Salem.
3.The Assistant Commissioner, Kondalampatty Assessment Circle, Salem - I Division, Salem.
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J.
rst AND WMP NO. 30913 OF 2025, WMP NO. 30916 OF 2025 01-08-2025