(Prayer:  Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India  praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the  records on the file of the respondent in GSTIN  33FMSPS2503F2ZX /2023-24 dated 15.11.2024 for the assessment year  2023-24 passed by the Respondent under section 73 of TNGST Act 2017  and to quash the same as cryptic, nonspeaking, illegal , arbitrary, wholly  without jurisdiction and direct the respondent to pass assessment order  afresh after affording opportunity of being heard)

1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order  dated 15.11.2024 passed by the respondent.

2. Mr.R.Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader,  takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for  disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. 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.

5. Further, he would submit that the respondent had already  recovered a sum of Rs.8,93,849/- from the petitioner and now, the  petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount after  deducting the amount already recovered by the respondent. Hence, he  requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present  their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.

6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader  appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had  uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed  to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no  opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to  the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to  remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of  remaining 25% of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned  Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the  materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was  uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not  aware of the issuance of the said 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.

9. 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 only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious  time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.

10. 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.  Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being  provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.

11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the  petitioner that the respondent had already recovered a sum of  Rs.8,93,849/- from the petitioner and now, the petitioner is willing to  pay 25% of the disputed tax amount after deducting the amount already  recovered by the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is  inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 15.11.2024 passed by the  respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-

(i) The impugned order dated 15.11.2024 is set  aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for  fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner  shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the  respondent, after deducting the amount, if any, already  recovered/paid, within a period of four weeks from the  date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside  of the impugned order will take effect from the date of  payment of the said amount.

(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection  along with the required documents, if any, within a  period of three weeks from the date of payment of  amount as stated above.

(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the  petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and  issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of  personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass  appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with  law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as  possible.

(iv) Considering the fact that the impugned order  itself has been set aside, this Court is of the opinion  that the attachment made on the bank account of the  petitioner cannot survive any longer and hence, it is to  be lifted. As a sequel, the respondent is directed to  release the attachment, and instruct the concerned bank  to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner,  immediately upon the production of a copy of this  order along with the proof for payment of amount as  stated above at clause (i).

12. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No  costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.