01Facts
The petitioner challenged three assessment orders under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for assessment years 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2023–24.
pp. 2–3The notices and communications had been uploaded to the GST common portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not filed replies.
pp. 2–3The orders were passed without a personal hearing, a fact acknowledged by the respondent.
pp. 2–3, 5The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax in each matter in return for an opportunity to respond and be heard
pp. 2–3, 502Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment orders should be set aside and the matters remitted where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, but no personal hearing was provided and the petitioner did not respond
pp. 3–5ii.2. Whether remittal should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax in each petition
p. 503Law Applied
Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to grant appropriate relief where an assessment process has not afforded a fair opportunity to be heard.
pp. 4–5Under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, service may be effected through the modes prescribed by that provision; portal upload is a valid mode of service.
pp. 4–5However, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to facilitate effective service and avoid merely formal, ex parte proceedings
pp. 4–5The assessments in these matters were made under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017
pp. 1–2Provisions in the judgment · 2
Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 169
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that portal upload constituted valid service, but considered that the absence of any response should have prompted the respondent to explore other service modes available under Section 169(1), rather than proceed on the basis of portal notices alone.
pp. 3–5The assessment orders were also made without a personal hearing, which the respondent acknowledged.
pp. 3–5In light of these circumstances and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the orders conditionally and remit the matters for fresh consideration
pp. 3–505Holding
The Court set aside the three assessment orders and remanded the matters to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax in each petition within four weeks of receiving a copy of the order; setting aside takes effect upon payment.
pp. 5–6The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
pp. 5–6The respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s submissions, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law
pp. 5–6The writ petitions were disposed of without costs
p. 6Original Court PDF
KBS MOTORSvsThe Assistant Commissioner
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
