C Balasubramanian vs. The State Tax Officer (St)
Held
The Court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the impugned order dated 21.08.2024. 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 was to be raised forthwith. The petitioner was also required to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days thereafter. The respondent authorities were directed to provide an opportunity for a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a final order within two months. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to deposit the amount and submit their reply within the specified periods, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced.
Facts
The petitioner, C. Balasubramanian, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order passed by the State Tax Officer (ST), Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle, for the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the notice was served only through the online portal, and they were unaware of the proceedings. The impugned order was dated 21.08.2024, with a consequential summary of order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer on the same date. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for 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 method of notice service and lack of personal hearing, as contemplated under the GST Act? Petitioner's Arguments: 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. 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.
Sections Cited
Not specified in the judgment
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 14.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN and W.M.P.(MD)No.25696 of 2025 C.Balasubramanian, Contractor, S/o.Chockalingam, 1/1, North Street, Palamadai, Sankar Nagar, Tirunelveli District - 627 357. ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State Tax Officer (ST), Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli District. 2.The Commercial Tax Officer, Tirunelveli Junction Assessment Circle, Commercial Taxes Buildings, Tirunelveli Division, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis calling for records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent vide his proceedings in GSTIN: 33ACDPB1805H1ZD, Tax Period 2019-2020, ARN-AD330524100575F, dated 21.08.2024 and its consequential summary of order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Form GST DRC-07 bearing Reference No: ZD3308241881267, dated 21.08
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.