01Facts
The petitioner challenged an order dated 23 April 2025 under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, confirming a demand of ₹12,49,209 for the 2023–24 tax period.
pp. 1–3The petitioner said it had not seen notices uploaded to the GST portal and had consequently not replied; no personal hearing was provided before the order was made.
pp. 1–3The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded and agreed to a remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
p. 302Issues
i.Whether, in the circumstances, service solely by uploading notices to the GST portal was sufficient when the petitioner did not respond, or whether the officer should have considered other modes of service under Section 169(1).
pp. 4–5ii.Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh consideration, given the absence of a personal hearing.
pp. 3–503Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for multiple valid modes of serving notices and other documents.
pp. 4–5Although portal upload is a sufficient mode of service, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through that mode, the officer should consider other available modes—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective.
pp. 4–5The order also reflects the requirement of a meaningful opportunity to be heard before an adverse decision is made; no precedent was cited.
Provisions in the judgment · 2
Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73Section 169
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal, but considered that the petitioner’s failure to respond should have prompted the officer to explore other statutory service methods rather than proceed solely on portal service.
pp. 3–5It viewed the absence of such efforts, together with the respondent’s admission that no personal hearing was given, as grounds to remit the matter for fresh consideration.
pp. 3–5The petitioner’s willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax informed the condition attached to the relief.
p. 505Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 23 April 2025 and remanded the matter, conditional on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
p. 5The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.
p. 5The respondent must then issue 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing, consider the petitioner’s response, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
p. 5The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
p. 5Original Court PDF
M/S.TVL SHARP CONSTRUCTION ,vsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
