Tvl Ganapath Marketing Services Represented By Its Proprietor Durai Pandiyan Ganesh Ram vs. The State Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ganapath Marketing Services, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order in Form GST DRC-07, bearing reference no. ZD330425226753H/2022-2023, dated 30.4.2025, issued by the State Tax Officer, Srirangam Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings because the notice was served only through the online portal. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that in similar cases, relief was granted upon the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner agreed to deposit this amount within thirty days of receiving the order.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's claim of not being aware of the online notice and the respondent's suggestion for a settlement. The Court decided to grant relief by quashing the impugned ex parte order, subject to the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount within thirty days. Upon compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's ITC account would be lifted. The petitioner would then be required to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days, after which the respondent would grant a personal hearing and pass a final order within two months. The Court stipulated that failure to comply with these conditions would automatically recall the benefit of this order, allowing the original impugned order to be enforced. The attachment on the petitioner's bank account would also be lifted immediately upon payment of the 25% disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed due to lack of proper notice to the petitioner, as per principles of natural justice and relevant provisions of the GST Act concerning service of notice? The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed without their knowledge, as notice was served solely through the online portal, which they claim they were unaware of. They relied on the principle that due process requires effective communication of proceedings. The respondent did not explicitly argue against this point but proposed a settlement mechanism involving a partial deposit of the disputed tax amount, suggesting a pragmatic approach to resolve the dispute without a full adjudication on the merits of the notice service issue.