Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 6235
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mr.Justice G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Vasantham Agencies, Represented By Its' Proprietor N.monikandan – Appellant
Versus
State Tax Officer (St)-ii (Inspn.) – Respondent
W.P.(MD)Nos.1775 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.1269 of 2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Azeem
For the Respondent: Mr.R.Suresh Kumar
The court emphasized that compliance with notice provisions under Section 169 of the TNGST Act is essential for upholding natural justice in tax assessments.
Headnote:(A) Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - Section 67 and Section 169 - Assessment order challenged - Petitioner engaged in manpower supply and cleaning services - Respondent inspected premises and raised demand for tax and penalty without proper notice - Court emphasized the necessity of serving notice as per Section 169, which mandates personal service or registered post - Court held that the assessment order cannot be sustained due to non-compliance with statutory requirements. (Paras 4, 6, 22, 23)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative proceedings - The court ruled that the modes of service prescribed in Section 169 must be strictly followed to ensure fairness. (Paras 19, 20, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, providing services to various entities, was subjected to an assessment order without proper notice as required by law. The respondent claimed notice was served electronically, which the court found insufficient.
Findings of Court:
The assessment order was quashed due to non-compliance with the notice requirements, and the petitioner was allowed to respond to a show cause notice.
Issues: The main issues were whether the notice was served in compliance with Section 169 and the implications of failing to do so.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that strict adherence to the notice provisions of Section 169 is essential for upholding the principles of natural justice.
Result: Writ petition allowed.
ORDER
This writ petition has been filed challenging the assessment order passed by the respondent dated 06.09.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19.
2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.
3. The petitioner is doing man power supply service and cleaning service for southern railways, BSNL, State Bank of India, BPCL, Cochin Ship Yard and Neel Metal (P) Ltd and Mobile Telecommunication service all taxable at 18%. While being so, the place of the petitioner was inspected by the respondent under Section 67 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “TNGST Act” for brevity) from 20.02.2023 to 23.02.2023 and recorded the statement of the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent raised demand for payment of tax and penalty for the year 2018-19.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised a specific ground that the petitioner was not served with any notice seeking explanation with regard to the defects alleged to have been detected at the time of inspection. As per Section 169 of the TNGST Act, a notice must be served in person or by registered post or to the registered e-mail ID alternatively and on failure or impracticability of adopting any of the aforesaid modes, the assessment order cannot be sustained. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in a batch of writ petitions in WP(MD)No.26481 of 2024 etc. , batch, dated 06.01.2025 .
5. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent, on instructions submitted that the petitioner was served with notice through respondent portal and therefore, admittedly, the petitioner was not served notice in compliance of Section 169 of the TNGST Act.
6. It is relevant to extract the provision of Section 169 of the TNGST Act, which is as follows:-
“ 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 representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of family residing with the taxable person; or
(b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgement due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorised representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; or
(c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or
(d) by making it available on the common portal; or
(e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or
(f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice.
(2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1).
(3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.”
7. The relevant portion of the
