Rajagopal Thulasidoss Vs The State Tax Officer

PRAYER:- Writ Petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for records of the impugned order passed in GSTIN/33AEHPT2706H1ZL/2017-2018 dated 27.12.2023

¶13

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

¶14

WP No. 25713 of 2025

¶15

along with DRC-07 Order under Section 73, Ref No. Ref No. ZD3312232304207 dated 27.12.2023 consequential rectification rejection order dated 05.02.2025 Ref No. ZD330225040893J, on the file of the Respondent herein and the quash the same as illegal, arbitrary against the principle of natural justice and against the law.

¶16

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Poojesh for Mr.S.Chetan Prakash For Respondent(s): Ms.P.Selvi, Government Advocate (t)

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned assessment order dated 27.12.2023, passed by the respondent relating to the Financial Year 2017-2018 and to quash the same.

¶19

2.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, in the

¶20

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

11.08.2023 was uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no

¶22

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

¶23

WP No. 25713 of 2025

¶24

ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned assessment order dated

¶25

27.12.2023 was also uploaded in the GST Portal, which is violation of principle

¶26

of natural justice. He would further submit that the petitioner after getting knowledge about the impugned assessment order filed the rectification application on 28.02.2024. However, the respondent rejected the same vide

¶27

order dated 05.02.2025. Now, 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.

¶28

3.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that as per the voluntary submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶29

the petitioner, subject to the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax demand 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

¶30

pass orders.

¶31

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

¶32

WP No. 25713 of 2025

¶33

4 .Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the

¶34

learned Government Advocate appearing for the repondent and perused the

¶35

materials available on record.

¶36

5.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶37

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

¶38

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 petitione r, confirming the proposals

¶39

contained in the show cause notice.

¶40

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

¶41

WP No. 25713 of 2025

¶42

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

¶43

but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no

¶44

response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should

¶45

have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by

¶46

way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also

¶47

the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective

¶48

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

¶49

purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not

¶50

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

¶51

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

¶52

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.

¶53

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

¶54

WP No. 25713 of 2025

¶55

Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being

¶56

provided to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned orders with terms, by issuing the following directions:-

¶57

(i) The orders impugned herein are set aside and the

¶58

matter is remanded back to the respondent for fresh consideration o n 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.

¶59

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along

¶60

with the required documents, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶61

(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.

¶62

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

¶63

WP No. 25713 of 2025

¶64

8.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no

¶65

8.With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. There is no

¶66

order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are

¶67

closed.