SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 3632

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Tvl. Viswanathan Amarnath, Proprietor of M/s.Shanvi Enterprises - Appellant 
Versus 
The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) - Respondent 
W.P.No.3617 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.4008 & 4009 of 2025
Decided on : 06-02-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms.C.Rekhakumari
For the Respondent: Mr.M.Venkateshwaran

The court emphasized the necessity of effective notice service to uphold natural justice, ruling that failure to provide a fair opportunity to respond invalidates the impugned order.

Headnote:(A) Goods and Services Tax Act - Section 169 - Writ of Certiorari - Violation of natural justice - The respondent issued an impugned order without providing the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing, leading to a claim of illegality and arbitrariness. The petitioner contended that notices were not properly served, resulting in an ex parte decision. The court emphasized the necessity of ensuring effective service of notices to uphold natural justice principles. (Paras 2, 7, 11, 17)

(B) Natural Justice - The court reiterated that the authority must ensure that notices are properly served and that the petitioner is given a fair opportunity to respond before any adverse action is taken. (Paras 7, 11, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 28.08.2024, claiming it was passed without a proper hearing due to inadequate notice service. The respondent argued that notices were issued and opportunities provided, which the petitioner failed to utilize.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice principles and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

Issues: The main issues were whether the notice was effectively served and if the petitioner was given a fair opportunity to respond.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the respondent must ensure effective service of notices and provide a fair opportunity for the petitioner to respond, emphasizing the importance of natural justice.

Result: The impugned order dated 28.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration.

ORDER :

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in order dated 28.08.2024 in GSTN 33AESPA5807M2Z9/2019-20 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the respondent uploaded DRC-01, reminders and the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 in “View Additional Notices” and Orders” column on GST Portal, whereby the time limit was provided for filing reply on or before 25.06.2024 and the personal hearing was fixed on 26.06.2024. Since the said notices and reminders were uploaded under the column, viz., "View Additional Notices and Orders", in the GST portal, the petitioner had no occasion to view the same. Under these circumstances, ex parte impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which clearly amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

3.Further, he would submit that in the present case, the respondent has erroneously reversed the ITC of Rs.31,437/- on the ground that the suppliers have filed GSTR 3B return with NIL turnover and failed to pay tax on the invoices declared in GSTR 1 for the relevant period. The learned counsel would submit that the supplier has duly filed GSTR 1 return declaring its tax liability correctly and that they have filed GSTR 3B return duly remitting its tax liability and hence, the reversal of ITC on the said ground is unjustified.

4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that in the present case, the respondent has issued show cause notice and also provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The details with regard to the same was mentioned in the show cause notice. However, the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunities, which were provided by the respondent. Therefore, he would contend that it is not that no show cause notice was issued and no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6.In the case on hand, the show cause notice was issued on 25.05.2024. Admittedly, the said notice was uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column and the part-time accountant who was engaged by the petitioner for filing returns, did not cross-check the 'view additional notices and orders' column and thereby, reply could not be filed in time and it is neither willful nor wanton.

7.Normally, while issuing a notice to an assessee, the relevant authority must not only send the notice but also ensure that it is properly "reached and served" on the assessee, meaning the onus is on the authority to verify that the notice has been delivered and received by the intended recipient; this aligns with the principles of natural justice and proper legal procedure.

8.In the present case, according to the petitioner, show cause notice was issued by uploading the same under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column due to which, the same was not taken note of and could not file the reply in time. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that there are multiple modes of serving of notices/summons/order/decision or any other communication prescribed under Section 169 of the Act, which reads as under:

“Section 169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.-

(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:-

(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised represe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top