Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 10 July 2023, issued in Form GST DRC-07, which confirmed proposals in a show-cause notice uploaded to the GST portal.
Source reference: p.2The petitioner said its consultant had not viewed the portal and that it therefore did not respond to the notices.
Source reference: p.2The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given.
Source reference: p.3The petitioner offered to pay 50% of the disputed tax, less amounts already paid, and sought a fresh opportunity to present its case.
Source reference: p.5Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where notices were uploaded to the GST portal, the petitioner did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided.
Source reference: p.3–42. Whether remand should be conditioned on payment of part of the disputed tax and subject to directions for filing objections and holding a personal hearing.
Source reference: p.5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act provides for multiple valid modes of service.
Source reference: p.3–4Although service by uploading a notice to the GST portal is sufficient, where the taxpayer does not respond, the officer should consider other available modes of service under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), to ensure effective notice.
Source reference: p.3–4An ex parte assessment made without an effective opportunity to respond or a personal hearing risks frustrating procedural fairness and causing avoidable further litigation.
Source reference: p.3–4Reasoning
The Court accepted that portal upload constituted a valid mode of service but considered the absence of any response a reason for the officer to explore other prescribed service modes.
Source reference: p.3–5It also noted the respondent’s acknowledgment that no personal hearing had been provided.
Source reference: p.3–5In those circumstances, the Court found inadequate efforts to secure effective service and considered remand appropriate, particularly given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 50% of the disputed tax after crediting amounts already paid.
Source reference: p.3–5Holding
The Court set aside the 10 July 2023 order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 50% of the disputed tax, less amounts already paid, within four weeks of receiving the order.
The setting aside takes effect upon payment.
Source reference: p.5–6The petitioner must file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks thereafter; the respondent must then give 14 days’ clear notice of a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p.5–6The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p.5–6Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171
Original Court PDF
T C MahendranvsThe State Tax Officer
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
