Facts
The petitioner challenged an adjudication order dated 17 December 2024, issued in Form GST DRC-07 for FY 2023–24.
Source reference: p. 2–3It contended that notices were uploaded under the GST portal’s “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab, of which it was unaware, and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 2–3The respondents acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided and did not oppose remand subject to the petitioner paying ₹25,000.
Source reference: p. 3The petitioner offered to make that payment.
Source reference: p. 2–3Issues
1. Whether the adjudication order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the petitioner did not respond to portal-uploaded notices and received no personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 3–52. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of ₹25,000 and subject to directions for filing objections and a fresh hearing.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other permitted modes.
Source reference: p. 4–5Although portal-uploaded notice constitutes sufficient service, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the proper officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.
Source reference: p. 4–5The Court also applied the principles of natural justice, requiring an opportunity of personal hearing before an adverse adjudication order is made.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Reasoning
The Court accepted that portal service was legally sufficient, but held that repeated non-response should prompt the officer to consider other modes of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceed after merely completing formalities.
Source reference: p. 4–5The order confirmed the show-cause proposals without a personal hearing, and the respondents conceded that no hearing had been afforded.
Source reference: p. 3–4In light of that procedural deficiency and the petitioner’s undertaking to pay ₹25,000, the Court considered remand appropriate, subject to the stated conditions.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Holding
The Court set aside the adjudication order and remanded the matter to the second respondent, conditional on the petitioner paying ₹25,000 within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment. The respondents must then issue 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 6Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171
Original Court PDF
M/S. A.G BABU SAHvsThe Commissioner of State Tax / Commercial Taxes
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
