Sathiyanarayanan vs. The Deputy Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, Sathiyanarayanan, filed a writ petition challenging a notice in FORM GST DRC-16 dated 28.11.2025, issued by the second respondent (Assistant Commissioner, State Tax). The petitioner's grievance was that recovery proceedings were initiated without providing a proper opportunity to be heard during the assessment proceedings, and the assessment order was not served on him. The respondents contended that assessment proceedings were completed, and orders were uploaded to the portal, which constitutes deemed service as per Section 169 read with Section 142 of the TNGST Act. They argued that the recovery proceedings are consequential to final assessment orders and cannot be challenged without assailing the assessment orders themselves.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's contention that the assessment orders were not served was addressed by the respondents' assertion that the orders were uploaded to the web portal, which amounts to deemed service as per Section 169 read with Section 142 of the TNGST Act. The Court found that since the assessment orders had become final, the authority had no option but to initiate recovery proceedings to realize the due tax. The Court observed that the petitioner had not taken any steps to challenge the assessment orders themselves, but only the consequential recovery proceedings. Therefore, at this belated stage, the writ petition challenging only the recovery proceedings could not be entertained. The Court dismissed the writ petition on merits. However, considering the petitioner's willingness to pay the arrears in installments, the Court directed the petitioner to pay the amount claimed in the impugned notice in 12 equal monthly installments, with the first installment due by 15.03.2025, and subsequent installments on the 15th of each succeeding month. Failure to pay any installment would entitle the respondents to proceed further.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned recovery proceedings initiated by the second respondent are liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of personal hearing and non-service of the assessment order on the petitioner, as per Article 226 of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the uploading of assessment orders in the web portal amounts to valid service on the assessee, as contended by the respondents under Section 169 read with Section 142 of the TNGST Act, thereby rendering the assessment orders final and precluding a challenge to consequential recovery proceedings? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the recovery proceedings were initiated without providing a proper opportunity of personal hearing and without serving the assessment order, thus violating the principles of natural justice. Respondents' Contention: The respondents contended that the assessment proceedings were duly completed, and the assessment orders were uploaded to the portal, which is deemed service under the TNGST Act. They argued that the petitioner cannot challenge the recovery proceedings without first assailing the final assessment orders.