Selvi vs. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal)

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, all notices/communications were uploaded by the 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. Under these circumstances, the impugned orders came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, these petitions have been filed.

Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, in each case, to the 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 orders.

On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed 4/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

In the cases 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 orders came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice. 5/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of 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.

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 6/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, in each case, to the respondents. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside all the 6 impugned orders dated 27.12.2023, 20.02.2024, 20.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 22.02.2024 & 26.02.2024 passed by the 2nd respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:- (i) The impugned orders dated 27.12.2023, 20.02.2024, 20.02.2024, 22.02.2024, 22.02.2024 & 26.02.2024 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the 2nd respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, in each case, to the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned orders will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount. 7/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 04.02.2026 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No nsa To 1. The Deputy Commissioner (Appeal) TNGST, Commercial Tax Complex Dr. Thangaraj Salai, Madurai.

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer-I Thirupparankundram Assessment Circle, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Commissioner (ST)(FAC), Thiruparankundram Circle, Madurai 625 020. 9/10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis