WP No. 19795 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04-06-2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY WP No. 19795 of 2025 AND WMP NO. 22240 OF 2025,WMP NO. 22241 OF 2025 M/s.CRCL LLP., Rep by its Authorized Signatory, Mr.Deepalam Ramachandra Eswarar Reddy, No.1, Natesan Nagar, Alapakkam Main Road, Alapakkam, Chennai 600 116. Petitioner(s) Vs The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Porur Assessment Circle. Respondent(s) PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorari, calling for Respondent's Order dated 17.02.2025 with Ref. No.GSTIN:33ALFPR8143R1ZE/2020-2021 and quash the same. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19795 of 2025 For Petitioner(s): Ms.Jyoshna C For Respondent: Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, Government Advocate (Tax) ORDER Challenging the order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the respondent relating to the assessment year 2020-2021, the petitioner had filed the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr.V.Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Tax), takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main Writ Petition is taken up for disposal at the time of admission stage itself. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a notice in Form DRC-01 dated 26.11.2024 was issued to the petitioner through GST common portal. Thereafter, two reminder notices were issued to the petitioner. However, the petitioner had neither filed its reply nor availed the opportunity of personal hearing. Hence, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19795 of 2025 confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice. 4. The impugned order is challenged on the premise that neither the show cause notices nor the impugned order of assessment has been served by tendering to the petitioner or by registered post, instead it was uploaded in the common portal under the head “Additional Notices” tab, thereby, the petitioner was unaware of the initiated proceedings and thus unable to participate in the adjudication proceedings. 5. It was further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax and that he may be granted one final opportunity before the adjudicating authority to put forth their objections to the proposal, to which the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent does not have any serious objection. 6. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19795 of 2025 show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice. 7. No doubt sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19795 of 2025 only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. 8. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Hence, this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with terms, by issuing the following directions:- i) The impugned order dated 17.02.2025 passed by the respondent is set aside. ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. iii) The petitioner is directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax, which https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19795 of 2025 the petitioner had voluntarily come forward to make such payment, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents, if any, within a period of two weeks. v) Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter in accordance with law. 9. With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 04-06-2025 jd Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No To The Assistant Commissioner (ST) Porur Assessment Circle. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis WP No. 19795 of 2025 KRISHNAN RAMASAMY J. jd WP No. 19795 of 2025 04-06-2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis