Mohana Constructions vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer
Held
The Court quashed the impugned order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer. While acknowledging the petitioner's argument regarding the violation of natural justice due to non-receipt of notices, the Court noted that service through the GST portal is generally considered sufficient for registered entities. However, considering the circumstances and the consistent view of the Court, the order was set aside on the condition that the petitioner deposits 25% of the disputed tax within 30 days. The quashed order was to be treated as an addendum to the Show Cause Notice in DRC-01. If the petitioner complied, the respondent was directed to pass fresh orders on merits within three months. Failure to comply would result in the writ petition being deemed dismissed, allowing the respondent to recover the tax due.
Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Mohana Constructions, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer. This order was preceded by several notices, including ASMT-10 dated 25.04.2024, DRC-01 dated 16.05.2024, and multiple personal hearing notices. The petitioner contended that the notices were sent only through the website portal and were not personally received, leading to an adverse order without sufficient opportunity. The respondent argued that service of notice through the GST portal is sufficient for a registered entity to proceed under GST enactments.
Key Issues
1. Whether the service of notices through the GST portal is legally sufficient for the respondent to proceed with passing an order, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice? (Question of law turning on the interpretation of GST enactments and rules regarding service of notice). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that notices were not personally received, violating the principles of natural justice and rendering the impugned order illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. They sought to quash the order and obtain a fresh adjudication after a sufficient opportunity. Respondent's argument: The respondent contended that the petitioner, being a registered firm, cannot plead ignorance of GST procedures. Service of notice through the GST portal is deemed sufficient under the respective GST enactments and rules, thus justifying the proceedings and the impugned order.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 129
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 16.07.2025 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN and W.M.P.(MD) Nos.14715 & 14717 of 2025 M/s.Mohana Constructions Virudhunage III-Circle Assessment Circle Ground Floor, Commercial Taxes Building NH-07 Madurai Road, Virudhunagar – 626 001. ... Respondent (Cause title amended vide order dated 16.07.2025 in W.P.(MD) No.19138 of 2025) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records on the file of the respondent in Notice Reference No.33AERPI7170Q1ZR/2019-20 (GST No. 33AERPI7170Q1ZR) dated 06.08.2024 for the assessment year 2019-20 and to 1/6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis quash the same as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without jurisdiction, and direct the respondent to pass order afresh after affording an sufficient opportunity.
For petitioner : Mr. R.Jagadeeshwaran For respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional
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.