C Balasubramanian vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the ex parte order and the violation of natural justice. Following the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader, the Court decided to grant relief conditionally. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) account would be raised, and the impugned order would stand quashed. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted thirty days to reply to the show cause notice. The respondent authorities were directed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing and pass a final order within two months thereafter. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the deposit and reply timelines, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced. No specific section of the GST Act was explicitly discussed in detail, but the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness were central to the decision.

Facts

The petitioner, C. Balasubramanian, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order dated 10.02.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) for the tax period 2020-2021, and a consequential summary of order dated 10.02.2025 in Form GST DRC-07 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (2nd Respondent). The petitioner contended that the notice was served only through the online portal, and he was unaware of the proceedings. The impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, violating the principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to quash the orders and requested a fresh assessment with a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the respondent authorities is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-receipt of proper notice and opportunity of personal hearing, as contemplated under the GST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice because the notice was served only through the online portal, leading to his unawareness of the proceedings. He contended that this lack of proper notice and opportunity for a personal hearing rendered the order illegal and without jurisdiction. Respondents' Arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in similar matters, reliefs were granted by directing the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount. The respondents did not contest the petitioner's claim of procedural irregularity but proposed a conditional relief.