01Facts
The petitioner challenged assessment and consequential demand orders for 2023–24, together with recovery proceedings.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–6The show-cause notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it had not seen them and had not received the notices in original.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–6The petitioner did not file a reply, and the assessment order was passed without a personal hearing; the respondent admitted that no personal hearing had been given.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–6The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought an opportunity to present its case.
pp. 2–4 · ¶ 4–6By consent, the High Court took up the petition for disposal at the admission stage.
p. 3 · ¶ 302Issues
i.1. Whether an assessment order could stand where notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided, and the taxpayer claimed it was unaware of the notices
pp. 3–5 · ¶ 4–10ii.2. Whether the assessment should be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 1103Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–10The Court accepted portal service as sufficient, but held that when a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should explore other available modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure effective service.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–10An ex parte assessment made without a personal hearing in the circumstances before the Court warranted reconsideration.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–10No judicial precedent was cited.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–10Provisions in the judgment · 5
GST Act, 2017 Section 74Section 73Section 79Section 169
TNGST Act, 2017 Section 79
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the notices had been uploaded to the portal and accepted that such service was legally sufficient.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–11However, the petitioner’s non-response, the absence of any personal hearing, and the respondent’s admission that no hearing had been afforded led the Court to find that further efforts to serve the notices effectively should have been made.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–11It considered that using another mode permitted by Section 169(1), preferably RPAD, could avoid the assessment proceeding ex parte and reduce further litigation.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–11In light of the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remand appropriate.
pp. 4–5 · ¶ 8–1105Holding
The Court set aside the impugned assessment order dated 30 December 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; the setting aside would take effect from the date of payment.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11The petitioner was directed to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks after payment.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11On receipt of the reply, the respondent must give 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and then pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
pp. 5–6 · ¶ 11The writ petition was disposed of without costs; the miscellaneous petition seeking dispensation with production of the original assessment order was allowed, and the other miscellaneous petition was closed.
p. 6 · ¶ 12Original Court PDF
M/s.SRI MATHURU EASWARAR TRADERSvsThe Deputy State Tax Officer - 1
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
