The court emphasized the necessity of providing a fair opportunity for defense in tax assessments, confirming procedural due process.

...Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records on the file of the 1^st respondent in connection with impugned Assessment Order vide Ref.No.ZD330125273724H dated 29.01.2025 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and consequently, directing the 1^st respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the 2020-21 after giving full and fair opportunity to the petitioner as well as revocation of the blocking of access to funds from the petitioner's bank account (HDFC Bank Current Account No.15962020000521 and HDFC Bank Savings Account No.15961530002445) which is with the second respondent.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Ganesh For Respondent – 1 : Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate (Tax)

For Respondent – 2 : Mr.C.Mohan and Ms.A.Rexy Josephine Mary for M/s.King & Partridge

ORDER

Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Tax) takes notice for 1^st respondent and Mr.C.Mohan, learned counsel takes notice for

2^nd respondent.

2. The relief sought in this writ petition is to quash the Assessment Order dated 29.01.2025 bearing Ref.No.ZD330125273724H passed by 1^st respondent and consequently, to direct the 1^st respondent to redo the assessment proceedings for the year 2020-21, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner and to remove the blocking of access to funds from the petitioner's Bank Accounts viz., Current Account bearing No.15962020000521 and Savings Account bearing No.15961530002445 with 2^nd respondent Bank.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is engaged in the business of construction works for various companies under the trade name, M/s.Royal Constructions. On scrutinization of the returns filed by the petitioner for the Financial Year 2020-21, following discrepancies were inter-alia noticed:

(i) Reconciliation of GSTR-01 with GSTR-3B; and (ii) GSTR-1 Late Fee Hence, 1^st respondent issued a Show Cause Notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 25.11.2024, proposing a liability totalling at Rs.18,46,354/- and calling upon the petitioner to file his Reply by 24.12.2024 and appear for personal hearing on 18.12.2024. However, the petitioner neither replied to the Show Cause Notice nor appeared for personal hearings and thus, 1^st respondent has passed the Assessment Order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 29.01.2025, confirming the demands proposed in the Show Cause Notice and directing the petitioner to pay the demand of Rs.18,46,354/- comprising tax, interest, penalty and late fee. Subsequently, the respondent-Department issued a Bank Attachment Notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 27.05.2025 to 2^nd respondent (petitioner's Banker) seeking to recover a sum of Rs.33,03,690/- from the petitioner's Bank Accounts towards the tax dues arising out of the impugned order of assessment, pursuant to which, petitioner's Bank Accounts viz., Current Account bearing No.15962020000521 and Savings Account bearing No.15961530002445 were freezed by 2^nd respondent Bank.

3.1. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Show Cause Notice and the impugned Assessment Order had not been served to the petitioner either by tender or by way of RPAD, instead, the same had been uploaded in the GST portal and thus, the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings initiated by 1^st respondent and was also unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the petitioner is provided with an opportunity, the petitioner would be able to explain the alleged discrepancies.

3.2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in the case of M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables Vs. O/o. The Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise in W.P.(MD)No.11924 o