The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice, ruling that the failure to provide adequate time and opportunity for a hearing rendered the impugned order arbitrary.

Order :

Heard Mr.S.Ramamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.U.Baranidharan, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the respondent and to quash the same.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, on receipt of show cause notice in Form DRC-01 notice dated 20.10.2023, issued by the respondent, which were followed by reminder Notices Nos. 1 and 2 dated 04.01.2024 and 22.01.2024 respectively, filed a reply in Form DRC-06 dated 15.02.2024, however, reminder Notice No.3 was issued by the respondent dated 22.04.2024, stating the the reply, that was uploaded by the petitioner was not visible clearly, and thereby, the petitioner was required to produce the reply manually on 24.04.2024 and personal hearing was also fixed granting only one day, i.e. on 23.04.2024 and subsequently, the impugned order came to be passed on 25.04.2024.

3.1 The leaned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not granted sufficient time either for filing reply manually or appear for personal hearing, as the petitioner came to know of the issuance of third reminder notice dated 22.04.2024 after the lapse of the date of personal hearing, hence, the petitioner was unable to appear before the respondent, however, the impugned order came to be passed against the petitioner, stating as if, the petitioner has neither filed reply nor appeared for the personal hearing.

3.2 It is further contended that the impugned order has been passed on account of two issues firstly i) with regard to receipt of advance and secondly, ii) with regard to the payment of tax for the transaction/sales that took place outside the State; that insofar as the first issue is concerned, it is stated that mere receipt of the advance will not ipso facto amount to supply and as regards the second issue, it is contended that the petitioner had already remitted the tax with regard to the sales occurred outside the State by applying separate Registration number and clearly setting out such facts, the reply was filed, however, respondent has not taken into consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner in Form DRC-06. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order is arbitrary, illegal and suffers from principles of violation of natural justice, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order and that apart, the reply filed by the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the respondent while passing the impugned order.

4. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent would submit that since the reply, that was uploaded by the petitioner was not visible clearly, the petitioner was asked to file reply manually on 24.04.2024 by virtue of the third reminder notice dated 22.04.2024 and was also called upon to appear for the personal hearing on 23.04.2024; despite the same, the petitioner neither filed reply annually, nor appeared during the personal hearing, therefore, the impugned order has been passed and therefore, it cannot be stated that no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner.

5. I have given due considerations to the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner, on receipt of the show cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 20.10.2023, filed reply in Form DRC- 06 dated dated 15.02.2024. However, according to the respondent, reply filed by the petitioner was not visible, hence, a reminder Notice No3 dated dated 22.04.2024 was uploaded by the respondent under the ''View Additional Notice'' Column, whereby, the petitioner was asked to appear on the very next day for the personal hearing, i.e. on 23.04.2024 and was required to file reply manually within 48 hours on 24.04.2024. U