Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Krishnan Ramasamy, J
Tvl.Joe Crane Services – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy State Tax Officer-1 (FAC) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners challenged lack of personal hearing in tax assessments. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding unawareness of notices on gst portal leading to ex parte orders. (Para 2 , 5) |
| 3. court observations on the need for effective notice delivery and compliance with due process. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's ratio emphasizing the requirement of personal hearing before adverse orders. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 5. final ruling to quash and remand the matters for fresh hearing. (Para 11) |
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 26.04.2024 and the impugned rejection order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the respondents.
2. Ms.P.Selvi, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondents in both cases. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for final 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 respondents under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply withi
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
