Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 7 August 2024 and the consequential Form DRC-07 for FY 2019–20.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 1, 3It submitted that notices had been uploaded under “View Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal, of which it was unaware, and that the assessment was made without a personal hearing.
Source reference: pp. 1–2, paras. 1, 3The respondent stated that the notices were uploaded on the portal, acknowledged that no personal hearing had been given, and agreed to remand subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 5The petitioner also undertook to pay that amount.
Source reference: p. 2, para. 4Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside where the notices were uploaded on the GST portal, the taxpayer did not respond, and no personal hearing was provided.
Source reference: pp. 2–4, paras. 3, 5, 7–92. Whether remand could be granted subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: pp. 2–5, paras. 4–5, 10Law Applied
The Court referred to Section 169(1) of the GST Act, under which service through the GST portal and other prescribed modes—including registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—are valid modes of service.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 8–9It held that where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices, the officer should consider other prescribed modes, preferably RPAD, to make service effective rather than merely formal.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 8–9The Court also treated the absence of a personal hearing as a lack of adequate opportunity in the circumstances of this case.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 5, 7, 9No precedent was cited.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
Although portal service was legally valid, the Court considered that the petitioner claimed not to have known of the notice and had not received the original notice; the respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been afforded.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 5, 7–8In those circumstances, the Court found that the officer should have considered another mode of service under Section 169(1), particularly after receiving no response, and concluded that the petitioner had not been given adequate opportunity to contest the proposals.
Source reference: p. 4, paras. 8–10The petitioner’s undertaking to pay 25% of the disputed tax supported remand on that condition.
Source reference: pp. 2, 4–5, paras. 4, 10Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 7 August 2024 and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the 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. 5, para. 10(ii)The respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 10(iii)The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: p. 5, para. 11Acts & 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
M/S.GENNYCOT EXPORTS,vsThe Deputy State Tax Officer-1,
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
