Saji vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner (GST)

Facts

The petitioner, Saji, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated July 4, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Tuticorin-II, Assessment Circle (the second respondent) under Section 73 of the Tamil Nadu TNGST Act for the period April 2022 to March 2023. The petitioner contended that the order was passed ex-parte, as the show cause notice and the order were only uploaded to the portal, preventing effective participation. The revenue argued that uploading to the portal constituted proper service and the petitioner, having failed to avail the opportunity, should not approach the court belatedly.

Held

The Court held that while the uploading of the show cause notice and the order to the portal might constitute service as per the Act and Rules, the overall facts and circumstances, particularly the petitioner's assertion of not being able to effectively participate, warranted granting an opportunity. The Court reasoned that considering the defects pointed out and the reasons in the affidavit, an opportunity could be granted to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that in cases where there is a genuine grievance regarding the inability to participate in proceedings due to the mode of service, and the assessment order is passed ex-parte, the High Court may, in its discretion, grant an opportunity to the assessee to present their case, subject to certain conditions. The impugned order dated July 4, 2024, was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the second respondent. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks and appear before the second respondent to file a reply and produce documents. The second respondent was directed to consider these afresh and pass orders according to law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a show cause notice and an assessment order solely to the GST portal constitutes proper service under the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu TNGST Act and Rules, thereby precluding the petitioner from challenging an ex-parte order? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural compliance). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that uploading the show cause notice and the order only to the portal did not amount to effective service, as it prevented them from participating in the proceedings and presenting their case. They sought an opportunity to be heard. Revenue's contention: The revenue contended that uploading the show cause notice and the order to the portal constitutes proper service as per the Act and Rules. They argued that the petitioner failed to utilize the opportunity provided and therefore, cannot seek relief from the High Court at this stage.