Madras High Court
Tvl Klimasys Hvac Technologies Private ... vs The Assistant Commissioner (St) on 2 June, 2025
Author: Krishnan Ramasamy
Bench: Krishnan Ramasamy
W.P.No.16996 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.06.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No. 16996 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.19286 & 19288 of 2025 Tvl Klimasys HVAC Technologies Private Limited, rep. by its Director Senthil Ramanan Soundarajan 16/3 Balaji Nagar, Industrial Estate, Ambattur OT Chennai TamilNadu – 600053.
..Petitioner Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) AMBATTUR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE NO.325, 3RD FLOOR, INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL TAXES BUILDING, NANDANAM CHENNAI - 600 035. Respondent Prayer Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari to call for records relating to the impugned order bearing GSTIN : 33AAHCA1509Q1ZL/2018-2019 along with DRC-07 bearing reference number ZD330424175048G dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Respondent and quash the same as the same being arbitrary illegal and without authority of law and in violation of Articles 14 19 (1) (g) and 265 of the Constitution and thus render justice 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 07:48:16 pm ) W.P.No.16996 of 2025 For Petitioner : M/s..N.Asmita For Respondent : Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik Additional Government Pleader (T) Order Heard Mr.N.Asmita, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.T.N.C.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader (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 along with DRC-07 dated 23.04.2024 and to quash the same.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the show cause notice was never served through registered post or any prescribed legal mode other than being uploaded in the GST Portal, therefore, the same was not noticed by the petitioner, hence, the petitioner has not filed reply or appeared before the respondent, and only when the petitioner received a phone call from the respondent-Department with 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 07:48:16 pm ) W.P.No.16996 of 2025 regard to the impugned demand of tax/interest/penalty, the petitioner became aware of the impugned order, however, the respondent, without even affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, passed the impugned order.
3.1 Therefore, it is submitted the impugned assessment order passed by the respondent suffers from violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be aside. However, it is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remands the matter back to the Authority concerned for fresh consideration and thus, prays for appropriate orders.
4. The learned Additional Government Pleader (T) for the respondent-Department fairly submitted that since the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered.
3/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 07:48:16 pm ) W.P.No.16996 of 2025
5. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST common Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, they were not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice issued through the GST Portal. Further, the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to the petitioner through registered post. 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.
5.1 No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who finds no response from the petitioner to the show cause notice, 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, the service of notice will not be deemed to 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 4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 07:48:16 pm ) W.P.No.16996 of 2025 any useful purpose and the same would 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.
6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order, as the same suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice. 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 the petitioner has now come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax in the event the impugned order is set aside, to which course, the learned Additional Government Pleader is also agreable, this Court is inclined to pass /issue the following orders/directions:-
5/8https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 07:48:16 pm ) W.P.No.16996 of 2025
i) The impugned order passed by the respondent dated 23.04.2024 is set aside.
ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
iii) The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner themselves have voluntarily came forward to make such payment within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents within a period of two weeks.
and
v) Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a 14 clear 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 Petition are closed.
02.06.2025 sd 6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 07:48:16 pm ) W.P.No.16996 of 2025 To THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (ST) AMBATTUR ASSESSMENT CIRCLE NO.325, 3RD FLOOR, INTEGRATED COMMERCIAL TAXES BUILDING, NANDANAM CHENNAI - 600 035 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 07:48:16 pm ) W.P.No.16996 of 2025 Krishnan Ramasamy,J., sd W.P.No. 16996 of 2025 02.06.2025 8/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 07:48:16 pm )