Paramasivan Velmurugan vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 1 (St)

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's grievance regarding the ex parte order and the lack of awareness due to online notice service. The Court accepted the respondent's submission that in similar cases, a condition of depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount has been imposed for granting relief. Consequently, the Court 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 Input Tax Credit (ITC) account would be raised, and the impugned order would stand quashed. The petitioner would then be required to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days. The respondent would grant a personal hearing and pass a final order within two months. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner fails to comply with the deposit and reply deadlines, the benefit of this order would be 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, Paramasivan Velmurugan, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (ST) on July 13, 2024. The petitioner contended that the notice was served only through the online portal, and consequently, they were unaware of the proceedings. The respondent is the Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (ST). The tax period in dispute is 2019-2020. The impugned order was passed by the respondent authority. The petitioner sought to quash the order and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the respondent is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, particularly concerning the method of notice service and lack of personal hearing, as per the provisions of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed without proper notice, as it was served only through the online portal, leading to their unawareness of the proceedings. They contended that this violated the principles of natural justice and sought a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent, through the Government Advocate, submitted that in similar matters, relief was granted upon the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.