Madras High Court
S.Saravana Enterprises vs Deputy State Tax Officer on 25 August, 2025
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.No.31790 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 25.08.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.P.No.31790 of 2025
and W.M.P.Nos.35594 & 35595 of 2025
S.Saravana Enterprises,
Rep. by its Proprietor-S.Saravanan,
47, Bhajanai Koil Street, Paruthipattu,
Chennai - 600 071. ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Deputy State Tax Officer-1,
Avadi Assessment Circle,
Integrated Commercial Taxes Building (Tiruvallur Division),
No.122, Elephant Gate Bridge Road,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 003.
2.Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Avadi Assessment Circle,
Integrated Commercial Taxes Building (Tiruvallur Division),
No.122, Elephant Gate Bridge Road,
Vepery, Chennai - 600 003. ... Respondents
Prayer:
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the impugned order of the
first respondent passed in GSTIN: 33EHBPS6834J1Z0/2019-20 dated
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:21:38 pm )
W.P.No.31790 of 2025
20.08.2024 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent
with reference No.ZD330225297777W dated 28.02.2025 and quash the
same.
For Petitioner : M/s.Divya
For Respondents : Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran,
Government Advocate
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the second respondent.
2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the second respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:21:38 pm ) W.P.No.31790 of 2025 Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the second respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Challenging the said assessment order, rectification application was filed, which was also rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not submitted any relevant documents. Hence, challenging the assessment order, this petition has been filed.
4. Further, she would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the second respondent and she has also made an endorsement to that effect in the case bundle. Hence, she requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the second respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that the second 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 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:21:38 pm ) W.P.No.31790 of 2025 passing of impugned order. Therefore, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the second respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax as agreed by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said 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 petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:21:38 pm ) W.P.No.31790 of 2025 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 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.
9. 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. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:21:38 pm ) W.P.No.31790 of 2025
10. 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 second respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 passed by the second respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 20.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the second respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of disputed tax amount to the second respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, as agreed by the petitioner. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.
(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 payment of amount as stated above.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondents shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:21:38 pm ) W.P.No.31790 of 2025 appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
25.08.2025 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No vm KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J., vm To
1.Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Avadi Assessment Circle, 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:21:38 pm ) W.P.No.31790 of 2025 Integrated Commercial Taxes Building (Tiruvallur Division), No.122, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 003.
2.Assistant Commissioner (ST), Avadi Assessment Circle, Integrated Commercial Taxes Building (Tiruvallur Division), No.122, Elephant Gate Bridge Road, Vepery, Chennai - 600 003.
W.P.No.31790 of 2025
and W.M.P.Nos.35594 & 35595 of 2025 25.08.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 01:21:38 pm )