Mgg Trading Private Limited vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST Appeal)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.MGG Trading Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax office, Tirunelveli Junction Circle, on September 30, 2024. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings as the notice was served only through the online portal. The revenue, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, submitted that in similar cases, relief was granted upon deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount. The petitioner agreed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days.

Held

The Court held that the ex parte order passed by the Assistant Commissioner would be quashed upon the petitioner depositing 25% of the disputed tax amount. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's submission to make this deposit and the revenue's concession in similar matters. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within thirty days. Upon compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's ITC account would be raised, and the impugned order would stand quashed. The petitioner would then be required to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days, and the Assistant Commissioner would provide a personal hearing and pass a final order within two months. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with these directions, the benefit of this order would be recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced. No specific provision was discussed in detail, but the decision implicitly addresses principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in tax proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-receipt of proper notice by the petitioner, particularly concerning the mode of service through an online portal? (Question of law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was illegal because they were not aware of the proceedings as notice was served solely through the online portal, implying a lack of effective communication. Revenue's contention: The Additional Government Pleader submitted that in similar matters, the Court had granted relief by directing the assessee to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount, suggesting a procedural compromise rather than a complete quashing of the order.