01Facts
The petitioner challenged the respondent’s GST assessment order dated 27 August 2024, which confirmed the proposals in the show-cause notice.
¶ 3–5 · pp. 2–3The petitioner said the notices were uploaded in the GST portal’s “View Additional Notices and Orders” section, of which it was unaware, and that it had not received a personal hearing.
¶ 3–5 · pp. 2–3The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided.
¶ 3–5 · pp. 2–3The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for remand.
¶ 3–5 · pp. 2–3The Court considered whether to set aside the order and remit the matter for fresh consideration.
¶ 7–10 · pp. 4–502Issues
i.1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where the petitioner received no personal hearing and claimed not to have been aware of notices uploaded to the GST portal
¶ 3, 5, 7 · pp. 2–4ii.2. Whether, despite portal-uploaded notices constituting valid service, the respondent should have explored other modes of service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act when the petitioner did not respond
¶ 8–9 · p. 4iii.3. Whether remand should be conditional on payment of 25% of the disputed tax
¶ 10 · p. 503Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes for serving notices and other communications.
¶ 8–9 · p. 4The Court accepted that uploading a notice to the GST portal is a sufficient mode of service, but held that where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other available modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to make service effective rather than merely formal.
¶ 8–9 · p. 4The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as a basis for remitting the matter for fresh consideration in the circumstances of this case.
¶ 5, 7 · pp. 3–4No precedent was cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 1
Goods and Services Tax Act Section 169
04Reasoning
Although portal upload was valid service, the Court considered the petitioner’s asserted lack of awareness alongside the respondent’s admission that no personal hearing had been afforded.
¶ 7–10 · pp. 4–5It found that, given the absence of any response to portal notices, the respondent should have considered other statutory modes of service, particularly RPAD, rather than proceeding ex parte after completing only the portal formalities.
¶ 7–10 · pp. 4–5In light of that service deficiency, the lack of a personal hearing, and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court found remand appropriate on conditions.
¶ 7–10 · pp. 4–505Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 27 August 2024 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; any amount already recovered or deposited may be adjusted against that payment.
¶ 10(i)–(iii) · p. 5The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
¶ 10(i)–(iii) · p. 5The respondent must then consider the reply, give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing, hear the petitioner, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
¶ 10(i)–(iii) · p. 5The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs.
¶ 11 · p. 6Original Court PDF
JAI MARUTHI ENTERPRISESvsDEPUTY STATE TAX OFFICER-01
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
