BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.02.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI W.P(MD)No.4544 of 2024 and WMP(MD)Nos.4383 & 4384 of 2024 Tvl.Periyasamy Chandran ... Petitioner Vs

1.The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) 1, Theni -I Circle, Theni District, Theni.

2.The Commissioner, Kodaikanal Municipality, Kodaikanal, Dindigul District. ...Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the impugned assessment order on the file of the first respondent vide GSTIN.33ANAPC4782E1ZG/2019-2020, dated 29.08.2023 and quash the same as illegal and devoid of merits and direct the first respondent to re-do the assessment for the year

2019-2020 after providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.R.Suresh Kumar Additional Government Pleader

O R D E R

This writ petition is filed as against the order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer, Theni/ the first respondent in GSTIN. 33ANAPC4782E1ZG/2020-21 dated 06.06.2023 and for a consequential direction to the respondents to redo the assessment for the year 2019-2020 by providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

2.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a registered contractor and he is doing service-maintenance of street lights in the Municipalities of Theni and Dindigul Districts. The petitioner is registered under the GST Act,2017. According to the petitioner, he has executed works to the Kodaikanal Municipality for a sum of Rs.15,14,204/-. However, the Kodaikanal Municipality has wrongly reported the petitioner's turnover in GSTR-7 as Rs.1,79,99,069/-. This is the reason for mismatch between GSTR 7 and GSTR 1. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent without verifying the documents and returns, which are very much available in the web portal has passed the impugned order stating the escaped turnover of the petitioner as Rs.1,64,84,865/-.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in most of the cases, the assessees are not aware of the show cause notices and assessment orders due to lack of communication through post. The Department is opting to send the communications only in the web portal, due to which, the dealers came to know about the assessment proceedings only on initiation of recovery proceedings and the related bank attachments. According to the learned counsel, Section 169(3) of the GST Act, 2017 prescribes the mode of communication through post. The learned counsel by relying upon Section 144B of the GST Act, 2017 submits that the Act prescribes sequence of procedure to be followed before issuing the final assessment order. However, it has not been followed by the Department properly. The another contention of the petitioner is that the dealers are not acquaintance with the online filing and therefore, they are depending upon the private service providers for doing the same.

4.The learned counsel has relied on the orders passed by this Court in W.P(MD) Nos.24407 and 24408 of 2023, dated 31.10.2023 and submits that the said writ petitions have been filed by this petitioner for the assessment years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022, wherein, this Court has set aside the impugned orders and a direction was issued to the Department to redo the assessment for the relevant period. Therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is also liable to be set aside.

5.Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents has raised serious objections that this petitioner is used to upload the returns only through electronic mode and therefore, he cannot plea that the petitioner is not aware of the notice communicated to the petitioner through portal. The learned Additional Government Pleader by referring to Rule 142 of TNGST Rules, 2017 submits that the Officer is expected to communicate the notice issued under Secti