01Facts
The petitioner, proprietor of Tvl. RR Granites and Marbles, challenged a tax assessment order dated 23 April 2024 and related proceedings for tax period 2018–19.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 4–6The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said he had not seen them and had received no personal hearing before the order was passed.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 4–6The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided. The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax in exchange for an opportunity to present his case.
pp. 1–3 · ¶ 1, 4–6The challenged proceedings included the assessment order, a DRC-07 summary, a DRC-08 order and a rectification order.
p. 102Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was given.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–8ii.2. Whether, in the absence of a response to portal notices, the officer should explore other modes of service available under Section 169(1) of the GST Act.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10iii.3. Whether setting aside the assessment order warranted lifting the attachment on the petitioner’s bank account, subject to the petitioner’s compliance with the Court’s payment condition.
p. 6 · ¶ 11(iv)03Law Applied
The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, which provides for valid modes of service of notices and orders.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10Portal service is sufficient, but where the taxpayer does not respond, the officer should consider other prescribed modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgement due—to make service effective.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 9–10The Court also exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 to set aside the challenged order and remit the matter for fresh consideration; it cited no judicial precedents.
p. 1 · p. 5 · ¶ 11Provisions in the judgment · 4
TNGST Act, 2017 Section 73Section 161Section 169Section 169
04Reasoning
Although the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner said he was unaware of it, and the respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–11The Court considered that, when portal notices received no response, the officer should have explored other modes of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceeding ex parte after completing only formal portal service.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–11In light of the lack of a personal hearing and the petitioner’s offer to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the order and remit the matter.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–1105Holding
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 23 April 2024 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11The petitioner must file a reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment. The respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and decide the matter on its merits and in accordance with law.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11The bank was directed to defreeze the petitioner’s account upon production of the Court’s order and proof of payment. The petition was disposed of without costs.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11Original Court PDF
Nazeer Ahamed Abzer AhamedvsThe Deputy State Tax Officer- II
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
