A Senthil Kumar (Contractor) Vs Assisstant Commissioner (St)

the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Reference No. ZD3308241096791 dated 13.08.2024 and quash the same.

¶22

PRAYER in W.P.No.26405 of 2025:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of

¶23

the Constitution of India, praying for an issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the impugned order of the first respondent passed in Form GST APL 02 in Reference No. ZD330325255474G dated 29.03.2025 and to quash the same.

¶24

In both W.Ps

¶25

For Petitioner(s): Ms.Divya.A

¶26

For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate (t)

¶27

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

¶28

WP No. 26398 of 2025

¶29

COMMON ORDER

¶30

W.P.No.26398 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

¶31

impugned assessment order dated 13.08.2024, passed by the 1 st respondent, relating to the Financial Year 2020-21.

¶32

W.P.No.26405 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the

¶33

impugned appeal rejection order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the 1 st respondent, relating to the Financial Year 2020-21.

¶34

2 .Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocat e (Taxes), takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

¶35

3 . By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for

¶36

disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶37

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

¶38

WP No. 26398 of 2025

¶39

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

¶40

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 10.04.2024 was uploaded in the GST Portal tab and the petitioner had no ocassion to open the GST Portal. Even the impugned assessment order dated 13.08.2024 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 Assistant Commissioner, had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority by paying 10% statutory deposit of the disputed tax demand. However, the appeal got rejected on the ground of limitation vide order dated 29.03.2025. 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 before the Assistant Commissioner and provide an opportunity of personal hearing so that the petitioner would be able to substantiate their case.

¶41

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

¶42

WP No. 26398 of 2025

¶43

5.Learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would

¶44

submit that as per the voluntary submissions made by the learned counsel for

¶45

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

¶46

case for re-consideration, this Court may consider and pass orders.

¶47

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

¶48

learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and perused the

¶49

materials available on record.

¶50

7.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on

¶51

either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned

¶52

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

¶53

issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice

¶54

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

¶55

WP No. 26398 of 2025

¶56

was not furnished to them. No doubt sending notice by uploading in portal is a

¶57

sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite

¶58

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

¶59

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.

¶60

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

¶61

WP No. 26398 of 2025

¶62

8.Thus, in such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the

¶63

impugned assssment order dated 13.08.2024 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.

¶64

9.For the reasons stated above, this Court is inclined to set aside the

¶65

impugned assessment order dated 13.08.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) and quash the impugned appeal rejection order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, this Court pass the

¶66

following orders:-

¶67

(i) The impugned appeal rejection order dated 29.03.2025 is hereby quashed and the impugned assessment order dated 13.08.2024 is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Assistant Commissioner (ST)/Assessing Officer for fresh consideration o n condition that the petitioner deposits 15% of the disputed tax amount in respect of the impugned assessment period in addition to the 10% deposit

¶68

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

¶69

WP No. 26398 of 2025

¶70

already made, as agreed by the petitioner, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶71

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

¶72

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner (ST)/Assessing Officer 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.

¶73

10.With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of.

¶74

There is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶75

24-07-2025

¶76

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

¶77

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

¶78

WP No. 26398 of 2025