Madras High Court
Ms.Palam Ravi Jeyasree vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 24 March, 2025
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.No.10400 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.03.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No.10400 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.11699 & 11700 of 2025 Ms.Palam Ravi Jeyasree, Proprietrix M/s.Sri Palam Silks Sarees. ...Petitioner Vs. The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Nandanam Assessment Circle No.46, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Salai, R.A.Puram Chennai – 600 028. ...Respondent Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the respondent in GSTIN : 33AADPJ4215F1ZB/2018-19 dated 04.04.2024 and the consequential order rejecting the rectification order in GSTIN : 33AADPJ4215F1ZB/2018-19 dated 07.01.2025 and to quash the same and further, to direct the respondent to re-do the assessment after taking into account of the annual return filed in GSTR-09 and the re- conciliation statement filed in GSTR-9C after granting an opportunity and pass orders in accordance with the provisions of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017.
1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:57:40 pm ) W.P.No.10400 of 2025 For Petitioner : Mr.J.Sunil Kumar For Respondent : Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate (T) Order
Heard Mr.J.Sunil Kumar learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate (T) who takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the respondent 04.04.2024 and the consequential order rejecting the rectification order dated 07.01.2025 and to quash the same.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that all the show cause notice/personal hearing notice/reminders, which culminated in the impugned order, were merely uploaded in the GST Portal under the ''View Additional Notices Tab'', hence, the same were unnoticed by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner could not file reply nor appear for the 2/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:57:40 pm ) W.P.No.10400 of 2025 personal hearing, however, without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order came to be passed.
3.1 Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order. Further, it is stated that in pursuance of the impugned order, the respondent has also initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner, whereby, entire disputed tax has already been recovered from the petitioner, hence, he prays for setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back to the Authority for fresh consideration.
4. The learned Government Advocate (T) for the respondent fairly submitted that since it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that 100% of the disputed tax has already been recovered from the petitioner's account, subject to the verification of the said statement, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered.
5. Taking into consideration of the submissions made on either side 3/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:57:40 pm ) W.P.No.10400 of 2025 and perusal of record, there is no dispute on the aspect that notices, which culminated in the impugned order were merely uploaded in the GST portal, which were unnoticed by the petitioner as the petitioner had no occasion to view the Portal then and there, hence, the petitioner could not file reply or appear for the personal hearing. However, the respondent passed the impugned order without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, which is nothing but an ex parte order, as the same suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.
6. Thus, once the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition requiring the petitioner to make any deposit, however, considering the fact that 100% of the disputed tax has already been recovered from the petitioner, this Court is inclined to pass the following orders/directions:-
i) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 04.04.2024 and the consequential order of rejection of application for rectification dated
07.01.2025 are set aside.
ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for 4/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:57:40 pm ) W.P.No.10400 of 2025 fresh consideration.
iii) The petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law.
7. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the aforesaid terms.
No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
24.03.2025 sd Index : yes/no Neutral Citation : yes/no To The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Nandanam Assessment Circle No.46, Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Salai, R.A.Puram Chennai – 600 028.
Krishnan Ramasamy,J., 5/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:57:40 pm ) W.P.No.10400 of 2025 sd W.P.No.10400 of 2025 24.03.2025 6/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/03/2025 06:57:40 pm )