Pooja Wood Works, Vs State Tax Officer

State Tax Officer, Selaiyur Assessment Circle, Room No.3341, 3rd Floor, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶11

... Respondent in both W.Ps.,

¶12

Prayer in W.P.No.25697 of 2025:

¶13

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent herein in Impugned order passed in GSTIN:33CRSPP3750M1Z4/2018-19 dated 27.04.2024 and quash the same.

¶14

1/8

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

W.P.Nos.25697 & 25699 of 2025

¶17

Prayer in W.P.No.25699 of 2025:

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the respondent herein in Impugned order passed in GSTIN:33CRSPP3750M1Z4/2018-19 dated 28.04.2024 and quash the same.

¶19

For Petitioner : M/s.G.Vardini Karthik in both W.Ps., For Respondent : Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, in both W.Ps., Government Advocate (T)

¶20

COMMON ORDER

¶21

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned

¶22

orders dated 27.04.2024 & 28.04.2024 passed by the respondent.

¶23

Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government

¶24

Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent in both writ petitions. By consent of the parties, these two main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶25

2/8

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P.Nos.25697 & 25699 of 2025

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in

¶29

these cases, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.

¶30

4. Further, she would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

¶31

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing

¶32

for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, she has fairly admitted that no opportunity of

¶33

3/8

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

W.P.Nos.25697 & 25699 of 2025

¶36

personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.

¶37

6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶38

Government Advocate for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

¶39

In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was

¶40

uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal, since his auditor has failed to brought to his knowledge 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

¶41

personal hearing to the petitioner , confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.

¶42

4/8

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

W.P.Nos.25697 & 25699 of 2025

¶45

8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient

¶46

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.

¶47

9. 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

¶48

5/8

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

W.P.Nos.25697 & 25699 of 2025

¶51

RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.

¶52

10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

¶53

(i) The impugned order dated 27.04.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.

¶54

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.

¶55

6/8

¶56

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶57

W.P.Nos.25697 & 25699 of 2025

¶58

(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.

¶59

11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No

¶60

costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶61

17.07.2025

¶62

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No vm

¶63

To

¶64

State Tax Officer, Selaiyur Assessment Circle, Room No.3341, 3rd Floor, Commercial Taxes and Registration Department Building, Nandanam, Chennai - 600 035.

¶65

7/8

¶66

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶67

W.P.Nos.25697 & 25699 of 2025

¶68

KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,

¶69

vm

¶70

W.P.No.25697 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.28858 & 28860 of 2025