2025 (2) TMI 356 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - first respondent without waiting for the petitioner s reply and without hearing the petitioner passed the impugned orders which are nothing but ex parte orders - HELD THAT - On perusal of records it is crystal clear that the impugned orders came to be passed against the petitioner behind their back as the respondent-Department has not taken any steps to serve any notices/communications which culminated in the impugned orders directly through physical mode of service and made it available only in the GST Portal under the View of additional notices and orders column which the petitioner was not aware and ultimately the impugned orders came to be passed against the petitioner without even affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner which is in total violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore this Court is of the view that the impugned orders are nothing but an ex parte orders and the same have to be set aside. The matters are remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED:- Whether the orders passed by the first respondent under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017/Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, including the Summary of the Order in Form GST DRC-07, were valid.- Whether the petitioner's right to natural justice was violated by the respondent's actions.- Whether the impugned orders should be set aside and the matters remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.- Whether the petitioner should deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount within a specified time frame.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS:The Court considered the submissions made by both parties and examined the records to determine the validity of the impugned orders. The petitioner argued that the orders were passed ex parte without affording them an opportunity to respond, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent, represented by the Advocate General, acknowledged the petitioner's willingness to deposit 10% of the disputed tax amount.The Court found that the impugned orders were indeed passed without proper notice to the petitioner, as they were made available only on the GST Portal, which the petitioner was unaware of. This lack of physical service and opportunity for a hearing constituted a clear violation of natural justice, rendering the orders ex parte and unjust. Consequently, the Court determined that the impugned orders must be set aside.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS:The Court issued the following orders:- The impugned orders in the three Writ Petitions were set aside.- The matters were remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration.- The petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the disputed tax within two weeks.- The petitioner was instructed to file a reply with supporting documents within two weeks.- The first respondent was required to provide a 14-day notice for a personal hearing to the petitioner.- The first respondent was directed to de-freeze the petitioner's bank account upon proof of payment and permit operation of the account for salary disbursement.The Court allowed the Writ Petitions on the specified terms, with no costs incurred, and closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.