Vamana Engineering Company Rep by its Partner, Mr. Silambarasan vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vanagaram Assessment Circle

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
Vamana Engineering Company Rep by its Partner, Mr. Silambarasan – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vanagaram Assessment Circle – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Karunamoorthy
For the Respondents: Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, GA

Table of Content
1. the writ challenges an assessment order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. petitioner claims lack of personal hearing. (Para 3)
3. government advocate acknowledges procedural lapses. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court emphasizes necessity of effective service of notice. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. writ petition granted; remanding case for reconsideration. (Para 10)

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 12.04.2024 passed by the respondent.

2. Ms.Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

Therefore, this petition has been filed.

4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay

25% of the d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document