Tvl. Sri Balaji Enterprises vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer L
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl. Sri Balaji Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.08.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1, Pudukkottai. The impugned order was issued under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-20, citing defects such as mismatch between GSTR 2A/2B and GSTR 3B. The petitioner contended that the entire proceeding was conducted solely by uploading the show cause notice and the order on the portal, thereby denying them a proper opportunity to be heard. The respondent argued that portal upload constitutes valid service and the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity.
Held
The Court held that while the respondent's argument regarding portal service has merit under the Act and rules, the petitioner's claim of not being able to utilize the opportunity due to the method of communication warrants consideration. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner had already paid over 60% of the tax liability. Therefore, the Court decided to grant the petitioner one further opportunity to present their case. The impugned order dated 09.08.2024 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh disposal. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent, file a reply, submit supporting documents, and raise all factual and legal grounds. The respondent was directed to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the law. No costs were imposed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of the show cause notice and the order on the GST portal constitutes proper service and adequate opportunity to the petitioner, thereby rendering the impugned order valid? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the TNGST Act, 2017). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the portal upload alone was insufficient and prevented them from effectively participating in the proceedings and presenting their case. They claimed a violation of the principles of natural justice. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that as per the Act and rules, uploading the show cause notice and the order on the portal amounts to valid service, and the petitioner's failure to respond meant they did not avail the opportunity provided.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
This writ petition is filed challenging the impugned order dated 09.08.2024. By the said order passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2019-20, it is noted there are certain defects, including mismatch between GSTR 2A/2B and GSTR 3B, etc.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the entire exercise was conducted only by uploading the show cause notice and the order in the portal, the petitioner could not make use of the opportunity.
The learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that as per the Act and the rules framed thereunder, uploading of the show cause notice as well as the order amounts to service and therefore, without availing the opportunity, belatedly, the present writ petition is being filed.
I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the assessment order, the grounds on which the defects are noted 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis and the tax liability on the other heads imposed. I have also considered the reason that is mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition for not participating in the assessment proceedings.
On an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that one opportunity can be granted to the petitioner, however, on condition to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount.
In this case, it is represented by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that already more than 60% of the tax liability has been realized. In view thereof, this writ petition is allowed on the following terms: (a) The impugned order, dated 09.08.2024 shall stand set aside and the matter is remanded back to the file of the respondent for fresh disposal; (b) It will be open for the petitioner to appear before the respondent and file a reply and also place on record such documents in support of its claim and to raise all grounds, both factual and legal, 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis before the respondent; (c) It is for the respondent to consider and pass orders afresh in accordance with law; and (d) No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. NCC : Yes/No 12.03.2026 apd
To The Deputy State Tax Officer- 1, Pudukkottai 3 Circle Commercial Tax Building Pudukkottai. 4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
.,J.
apd ORDER MADE IN 12.03.2026 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
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.