01Facts
The petitioner challenged assessment orders dated 3 March 2025, 4 September 2024 and 28 October 2024, along with consequential proceedings including Form GST DRC-13 dated 19 June 2025.
p. 4 · ¶ 4It contended that the show-cause notices, personal-hearing notices and assessment orders had been uploaded on the GST Portal but not physically served, and that it had no opportunity to respond or be heard.
pp. 4–6 · ¶ 4The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax demand in each case and sought an opportunity to file objections and attend a personal hearing. The respondents did not oppose remand on that condition.
p. 6 · ¶ 502Issues
i.Whether the assessment orders should be set aside where the petitioner claimed it had not received effective notice or an opportunity for a personal hearing.
pp. 6–7 · ¶ 4, 7–8ii.Whether relief should be conditional on the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax demand in each case.
p. 6 · p. 8 · ¶ 5, 9(i)03Law Applied
The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement that a taxpayer receive an effective opportunity to respond to notices and be heard before an adverse assessment is made.
p. 7 · ¶ 7–8It observed that where the statute provides alternative modes of service, the authority should adopt an effective mode rather than repeatedly relying only on portal uploads when no response is received.
p. 7 · ¶ 7The judgment cites no specific statutory provision or precedent.
04Reasoning
The Court accepted that the notices had been uploaded to the GST Portal, but noted the petitioner’s claim that it was unaware of them and had not received physical copies.
p. 7 · ¶ 7–8Given the absence of a response, the availability of alternative service modes, and the failure to afford a personal hearing, the Court found that the assessment orders had been made in breach of natural justice and that the petitioner should be allowed to establish its case on the merits.
p. 7 · ¶ 7–8The respondents’ position supported remand subject to the petitioner’s proposed 25% deposit.
p. 6 · ¶ 505Holding
The Court set aside the challenged assessment orders on condition that the petitioner deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount in each case within four weeks of receiving the order; any amount paid after the assessment orders may be deducted from that deposit.
p. 8 · ¶ 9(i)–(ii)The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within two weeks thereafter.
p. 8 · ¶ 9(iii)The first respondent must then consider the reply, give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing, and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.
p. 8 · ¶ 9(iii)–(iv)The writ petitions were disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were dealt with as stated in the order.
pp. 8–9 · ¶ 10Original Court PDF
M/S.Sunrise Enterprises, Rep by its Proprietor S.KvsThe Assistant Commissioner (ST),
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
