GST officers should use alternative statutory service modes when portal notices receive no response.

Facts

The petitioner challenged the respondent’s assessment order dated 29 March 2023 for FY 2018–19.

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3–5

The petitioner said that notices uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal had not come to its attention and that no personal hearing was provided before the order was made.

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3–5

The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded.

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3–5

The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in return for a fresh consideration of the matter.

Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3–5

The petition sought certiorari to quash the assessment order.

Source reference: p. 1

Issues

Whether the assessment order should be set aside where notices were uploaded on the GST portal but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and no personal hearing was provided

Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 5, 7–9

Whether remand for fresh consideration could be conditioned on payment of 25% of the disputed tax

Source reference: p. 5, para. 10

Law Applied

Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other modes such as registered post with acknowledgement due.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 8–9

While portal service is a valid mode, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded through that mode, the officer should consider using another prescribed mode to secure effective service; merely completing formalities may not achieve that purpose.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 8–9

The Court also applied the requirement of a fair opportunity to be heard before the assessment was finalised; it cited no precedent.

Source reference: pp. 3–5, paras. 5, 7–10

Reasoning

The Court accepted that portal upload is sufficient service in law, but considered that the petitioner’s non-response to the notices should have prompted the respondent to explore another mode of service under Section 169(1), preferably registered post.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 7–10

The respondent also admitted that the petitioner had not received a personal hearing.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 7–10

In those circumstances, and given the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration on that condition.

Source reference: pp. 4–5, paras. 7–10

Holding

The Court set aside the assessment order and remanded the matter, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.

The petitioner was to file its reply and documents within three weeks after payment.

Source reference: pp. 5–7, para. 10

The respondent was to give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s submissions, and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

Source reference: pp. 5–7, para. 10

Any bank attachment was to be lifted upon proof of payment, with the petitioner permitted to present the proof and order directly to the bank if necessary.

Source reference: pp. 5–7, para. 10

The writ petition was disposed of without costs.

Source reference: pp. 5–7, para. 10