Facts
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 1 July 2024, contending that notices had been uploaded to the GST portal without his knowledge and that the order was passed without a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 2–3The petitioner stated that he was willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax to obtain a fresh hearing.
Source reference: p. 2–3The respondent accepted that no personal hearing had been provided and agreed to remittal subject to that payment.
Source reference: p. 2–3The Court noted that the show-cause notice had been uploaded to the GST portal and that the assessment order confirmed its proposals.
Source reference: p. 3Issues
1. Whether the assessment order should be set aside and the matter remitted where the petitioner did not respond to notices uploaded to the GST portal and was not given a personal hearing.
Source reference: p. 2–42. Whether the petitioner’s request for a fresh hearing could be allowed subject to payment of 10% of the disputed tax.
Source reference: p. 2–3, 5Law Applied
Section 169(1) of the GST Act recognises prescribed modes of service, including service through the GST portal and other available modes.
Source reference: p. 3–4Although portal-uploaded notice constitutes sufficient service, where a taxpayer does not respond, the officer should consider using another prescribed mode—preferably registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD)—to make service effective, rather than treating formal compliance as sufficient.
Source reference: p. 3–4The Court also required a personal hearing before fresh orders were made in this case.
Source reference: p. 5Reasoning
The Court accepted that uploading the notice to the GST portal was a valid mode of service, but held that the absence of any response should have prompted the officer to consider other modes permitted by Section 169(1), particularly RPAD.
Source reference: p. 3–5The respondent also acknowledged that no personal hearing had been afforded.
Source reference: p. 3–5In those circumstances, and given the petitioner’s undertaking to pay 10% of the disputed tax, the Court considered remittal appropriate.
Source reference: p. 3–5Holding
The Court set aside the order dated 1 July 2024 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, conditional on the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order; the setting aside takes effect upon payment.
The petitioner must file objections and supporting documents within three weeks of payment.
Source reference: p. 5The respondent must then issue 14 days’ clear notice fixing a personal hearing and pass fresh orders on the merits and in accordance with law.
Source reference: p. 5The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
Source reference: 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
ArunprasathvsThe Commercial Tax officer
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
