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/2019-20 and quash the order dated 30.06.2021 passed therein.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order

¶24

dated 30.06.2021 passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶25

Ms.K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes

¶26

notice on behalf of the respondents 1 & 2. By consent of the parties, the

¶27

main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that a ll

¶29

notices/communications were uploaded by the 1 st respondent in the GST

¶30

2/8

¶31

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

¶32

W.P.No.7102 of 2025

¶33

portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed

¶34

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 order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed.

¶35

4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount as pre-deposit while filing the appeal, which was returned by the respondents and now, they are willing to pay additional 15% 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 order.

¶36

5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate 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

¶37

3/8

¶38

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

¶39

W.P.No.7102 of 2025

¶40

the passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the 1 st respondent, subject to the payment of remaining 15% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.

¶41

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

¶42

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

¶43

In the cases on hand, it is clear that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Hence, this Court is of the view that the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice since it is just and necessary to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to establish their case on merits.

¶44

Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the

¶45

petitioner that the petitioner had already paid 10% of the disputed tax amount and now, he is willing to pay additional 15% of the disputed tax

¶46

4/8

¶47

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

¶48

W.P.No.7102 of 2025

¶49

amount to the 1^st respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2021 passed by the

¶50

1^st respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

¶51

(i) The impugned order dated 30.06.2021 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 1 st respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 15% of disputed tax amount to the respondents within a period of four weeks from today (10.03.2025) and the setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.

¶52

(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.

¶53

(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.

¶54

5/8

¶55

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

¶56

W.P.No.7102 of 2025

¶57

(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order itself has 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.

¶58

8. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

¶59

10.03.2025

¶60

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

¶61

6/8

¶62

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

¶63

W.P.No.7102 of 2025