IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 24.02.2025 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy W.P.No.5539 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.6103 & 6104 of 2025 Tvl. Sri Balaji Traders rep. by its Proprietor N.Govindarajalu ...Petitioner Vs.

The Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, Chidambaram -I Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu.

...Respondent Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for records of the order of assessment in DRC-07 bearing Ref No.ZD3308242227973 in GSTIN/ID : 33AAGPG2292Q1ZF/2019-20 dated 24.08.2024 passed by the respondent and to quash the same and further, to direct the respondent to lift the bank attachment notice in Form DRC-13 dated 05.02.2025, issued by the respondent on the petitioner's banker.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Ganesh Kanna For Respondent : Ms..Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran Government Advocate (T)

Order

Heard Mr.R.Ganesh Kanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran learned Government Advocate (T) 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 of assessment passed by the respondent in DRC-07 dated 24.08.2024 and to quash the same and further, to direct the respondent to lift the bank attachment notice issued in Form DRC-13 dated 05.02.2025 on the petitioner's banker. 3. Mr.R.Ganesh Kanna, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent issued a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 22.05.2024, which has been uploaded in the GST Portal under the Column ''View Additional Notices/Orders'' instead of usual column ''View Notices/Orders'', and hence, the said notice was unnoticed by the petitioner; that thereafter, the respondent also sent reminders dated 26.06.2024, 19.07.2024 and 19.08.2024, and since the same have also been uploaded in the GST Portal under the said different Column, those notices have also been unnoticed by the petitioner, however, the respondent passed the impugned order by stating that the petitioner failed to file reply nor appeared before the respondent for the personal hearing, hence, the proposals contained in the show cause notice are confirmed.

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reasons for non responsive to the show cause notice and reminders is purely owing to the fact that the petitioner has no knowledge of the same, as they were uploaded in the GST Portal under the unusual column, i.e. 'View Additional Notice/Orders', and only when the petitioner received an intimation as regards the attachment of their bank account, the petitioner immediately verified the online portal, and found that all notices/communications, which culminated in the impugned order have been merely uploaded in the GST Portal.

3.2 The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate person and is not well accustomed with operation of the computer system so as to view On-line services through GST Portal independently without anyone's help. Therefore, the petitioner could neither file reply nor appear before the respondent for the personal hearing, however, the respondent, without even hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order and also proceeded to initiate recovery proceedings by attaching their bank account.

3.3 Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order by mainly contending that the impugned order is nothing but an ex parte order, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the the same and insofar as the notices/communications, which have been merely uploaded to the GST Dashboard under ''View Additional Notices and Orders'' tabs in the GST Portal are concerned, the same can no longer be deemed to be a sufficient service.

3.4 The learned counsel further submitted that when the petition