Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.

Opportunity of Personal Hearing Missed due to SCN Issuance on GST Portal: Madras HC Remands Matter Referring to S.169 [Read Order]

Madras High Court set aside an order that had been passed without giving the petitioner a fair opportunity of personal hearing as notices were issued on the portal, which were missed.

Varsha
Opportunity of Personal Hearing Missed due to SCN Issuance on GST Portal: Madras HC Remands Matter Referring to S.169 [Read Order]
X

The Madras High Court remanded a matter where opportunity of hearing was missed as the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on the GST Portal. The Court made a reference to Section 169 of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017. The counsel for the petitioner, A. Satheesh Murugan, submitted that all notices were uploaded by the Deputy State Tax Officer/Respondent on the GST...


The Madras High Court remanded a matter where opportunity of hearing was missed as the Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued on the GST Portal. The Court made a reference to Section 169 of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017.

The counsel for the petitioner, A. Satheesh Murugan, submitted that all notices were uploaded by the Deputy State Tax Officer/Respondent on the GST common portal. The petitioner, Tvl. Pandian Electricals, was not aware of these notices and failed to reply on time. Under these circumstances, an order dated 20.02.2025 was passed without providing opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

The counsel submitted that the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent but requests the Court to grant an opportunity to present their case before the respondent/Deputy State Tax Officer - 1 (FAC) by setting aside the impugned order.

The Additional Government Pleader, R. Suresh Kumar, appearing for the respondent, admitted that no opportunity of hearing was provided and requested the Court to remit the matter subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.

The High Court took note that the original of the SCN was not furnished to the petitioner. It observed that proposals of the SCN cannot be confirmed before giving a fair opportunity to be heard to both sides. While sending a notice via the portal is sufficient, the fact that there were no responses to the repeated reminders should be an indication that other modes prescribed in Section 169 should be used to send notices.

The Madras HC, via Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, was of the opinion that empty formalities do not serve any useful purpose and only paves way for multiplicity of litigations. The Court was inclined to set aside the order dated 20.02.2025 and directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates

Tvl. Pandian Electricals vs Deputy State Tax Officer , 2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 409 , W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2026 , 13 February 2026 , A.Satheesh Murugan , R.Suresh Kumar
Tvl. Pandian Electricals vs Deputy State Tax Officer
CITATION :  2026 TAXSCAN (HC) 409Case Number :  W.P.(MD)No.4013 of 2026Date of Judgement :  13 February 2026Coram :  KRISHNAN RAMASAMYCounsel of Appellant :  A.Satheesh MuruganCounsel Of Respondent :  R.Suresh Kumar
Next Story

Related Stories

All Rights Reserved. Copyright @2019