Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 7 February 2025, passed under Section 74 of the GST Act for FY 2019–2020.
Source reference: p. 1–3Notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner said it was unaware of them and had not received the show-cause notice otherwise.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioner did not file a reply, and the respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given before the order was passed.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioner offered to pay 15% of the disputed tax in return for an opportunity to present its case; the respondent agreed to remittal on that condition.
Source reference: p. 2–3Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded on the GST portal and was not afforded a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 2–42. Whether remittal should be conditioned on payment of 15% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: p. 3–5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for modes of service of notices and orders; service by uploading a notice on the GST portal is a valid mode.
Source reference: p. 3–4However, where a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other prescribed modes of service—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to ensure effective service rather than merely completing formalities.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Court also proceeded on the respondent’s acknowledgment that no personal hearing had been provided before the impugned order.
Source reference: p. 3No precedent was cited.
Source reference: p. 3–4Reasoning
Although portal service was valid, the Court considered that the petitioner claimed not to have known of the show-cause notice and had not received its original.
Source reference: p. 3–4Given the absence of a response, the officer should have explored another mode of service under Section 169(1), rather than proceeding to an ex parte assessment without a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 3–4The petitioner’s willingness to pay 15% of the disputed tax, together with the respondent’s consent to remittal on that condition, supported setting aside the order and providing a fresh hearing.
Source reference: p. 3–5Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 7 February 2025 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
Source reference: p. 5The respondent must then issue 14 clear days’ notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
Source reference: p. 5Acts & Sections Cited
2 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20172
Original Court PDF
Iswariyam TradersvsThe Commercial Tax Officer
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
