M/s Astla Steel Vs The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in his proceedings in GSTIN/33EBDPS6791A1ZL/2018-19, GSTIN/33EBDPS6791A1ZL/2019-20 & GSTIN/33EBDPS6791A1ZL/ 2020-21 and quash the order dated 16.02.2024, 18.03.2024 & 11.08.2023 respectively passed therein.

¶21

For Petitioner in all petitions : Mr.P.V.Sudhakar For Respondent in all petitions : Ms.K.Vasanthamala, Government Advocate for R1 & R2

¶22

COMMON ORDER

¶23

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned orders dated 16.02.2024, 18.03.2024 & 11.08.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶24

Ms.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes

¶25

2/8

¶26

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

¶27

W.P.Nos.7094, 7096 & 7106 of 2025

¶28

notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2 in all these petitions. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a ll notices/communications were uploaded by the 1 st respondent in the GST 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. Hence, these petitions have been filed.

¶30

4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the 1 st respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned orders.

¶31

3/8

¶32

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

¶33

W.P.Nos.7094, 7096 & 7106 of 2025

¶34

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate

¶35

appearing for the respondents 1 & 2 would submit that the 1 st 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 personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned orders. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the 1 st respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.

¶36

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

¶37

Government Advocate for the respondents 1 & 2 and also perused the materials available on record.

¶38

In the cases on hand, it is clear that no opportunity of personal

¶39

hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned

¶40

orders. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned orders were

¶41

passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their

¶42

4/8

¶43

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

¶44

W.P.Nos.7094, 7096 & 7106 of 2025

¶45

case on merits.

¶46

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 1^st respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders dated 16.02.2024, 18.03.2024 & 11.08.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

¶47

(i) The impugned orders dated 16.02.2024, 18.03.2024 & 11.08.2023 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the 1 st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the respondents, in each case, within a period of four weeks from today (10.03.2025) and the setting aside of the impugned orders will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.

¶48

(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 receipt of copy of this order.

¶49

5/8

¶50

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

¶51

W.P.Nos.7094, 7096 & 7106 of 2025

¶52

(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.

¶53

(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned orders itself have been set aside, this Court is of the opinion that the attachment made on the bank account of the petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to be lifted. As a sequel, the 3 rd respondent to release the attachment, and de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner, immediately upon the production of proof with regard to the payment made by the petitioner as stated above.

¶54

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

¶55

No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶56

10.03.2025

¶57

Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No

¶58

6/8

¶59

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