Tvl.Thai Medicals And Generals vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1

Held

The Court held that the impugned ex parte order was to be quashed. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission that they were unaware of the proceedings due to online notice service, which implied a potential violation of natural justice. The Court, following the respondent's submission regarding similar matters, directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days. Upon compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's ITC account would be raised. The petitioner would then have thirty days to reply to the show cause notice. The respondent was directed to provide a personal hearing and pass a final order within two months thereafter. The Court also 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 issue was left undecided, as the court provided a clear path for resolution.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Thai Medicals and Generals, represented by its Proprietor, R. Ramachandran, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petitioner challenged an ex parte order passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Nilakottai Assessment Circle, dated 30.10.2023, in Form GST DRC-07. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings because the notice was served only through an online portal. The respondent is the tax authority, and the tax period in dispute is 2019-20. The amount in dispute is not explicitly stated but is implied by the reference to 'disputed tax amount'. The procedural history involves the issuance of the impugned ex parte order and the subsequent filing of the writ petition.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, particularly concerning the petitioner's lack of awareness of the proceedings due to online notice service? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was illegal and violated natural justice principles because they were not aware of the proceedings as notice was served only through the online portal. They sought to quash the order and have the assessment redone with an opportunity for a personal hearing. Respondent's Arguments: The learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in similar matters, relief was granted upon the condition that the assessee deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount. The respondent did not explicitly contest the petitioner's claim of non-awareness but proposed a conditional relief.