Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 27 June 2024 for FY 2019–20.
Source reference: p. 2The notices had been uploaded to the GST portal, but the petitioner claimed it had not become aware of them and had not received the original show-cause notice.
Source reference: pp. 2–3The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing had been provided before the order was passed.
Source reference: pp. 2–3The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax and sought a remand.
Source reference: pp. 2–3Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remanded where the notices were uploaded to the GST portal but no personal hearing was provided
Source reference: paras. 7–10, pp. 3–52. Whether, when a taxpayer does not respond to notices uploaded on the portal, the officer should explore other modes of service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act
Source reference: paras. 8–9, pp. 4–5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises the prescribed modes of service of notices and orders; service by uploading a notice to the GST portal is a valid mode.
Source reference: p. 3However, where there is no response to notices sent through one mode, the officer should consider other available modes under Section 169(1), preferably registered post with acknowledgement due (RPAD), to make service effective.
Source reference: pp. 4–5The Court also proceeded on the requirement that the taxpayer be afforded a personal hearing before the matter is decided.
Source reference: pp. 3–5Reasoning
The Court did not hold portal service invalid; it accepted that uploading notices to the portal constitutes sufficient service.
Source reference: pp. 3–5It nevertheless found that, given the taxpayer’s lack of response, the officer should have considered other statutory modes of service rather than rely solely on portal notices.
Source reference: pp. 3–5The respondent also admitted that no personal hearing had been provided.
Source reference: pp. 3–5In view of these circumstances and the petitioner’s offer to pay 25% of the disputed tax, the Court set aside the order conditionally and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Source reference: pp. 3–5Holding
The writ petition was disposed of, and the assessment order was set aside subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the order; the setting aside would take effect upon payment.
The petitioner was to file its reply and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
Source reference: para. 10, pp. 5–6The respondent was then to give 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: para. 10, pp. 5–6No costs were awarded.
Source reference: para. 11, p. 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
Senthil HardwaresvsThe Deputy State Tax Officer 2
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Courts will not interfere with transfers absent mala fides or violation of statutory rules.. M Ramya vs EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION (ESIC). CAT - ['Chennai']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/courts-will-not-interfere-with-transfers-absent-mala-fides-or-violation-of-statutory-rules-a6845e9ca6f548fca284c51c8351957f.webp)
![Courts cannot direct one-time recruitment age relaxation absent authority in the governing rules or advertisement.. UT OF PUDUCHERRY vs M ANDAL. CAT - ['Chennai']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/courts-cannot-direct-one-time-recruitment-age-relaxation-absent-authority-in-the-governing-895d78fde47143e2a8ed0207c4b6a44f.webp)
![A review cannot correct an allegedly erroneous decision absent an error apparent on the record.. Ajit Kumar Jha vs RAILWAY BOARD. CAT - ['Delhi']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/a-review-cannot-correct-an-allegedly-erroneous-decision-absent-an-error-apparent-on-the-re-8ac952fd4eba470c92f7da20af72a220.webp)