M/S.Jasmine Trade vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Jasmine Trade, represented by its Proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.11.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner(ST), Tuticorin-II Circle, under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act for the Financial Year 2021-22. The petitioner contended that the impugned assessment order was uploaded only on the web portal, and therefore, they were unaware of it and could not participate in the proceedings, leading to an ex-parte order. The petitioner did not avail the opportunity to respond when the show cause notice was uploaded, and the final order was consequently passed without their input.

Held

The Court held that while the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to participate in the proceedings when the show cause notice was uploaded, leading to an ex-parte order, a one-time opportunity should be granted. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that they were unaware of the order's upload on the web portal. Consequently, the impugned order dated 19.11.2025 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the respondent authority for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks of receiving the order's web copy. Upon payment, the petitioner must appear before the respondent, file their reply, and produce supporting documentary evidence. The respondent authority is then to pass a fresh order in accordance with the law expeditiously. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was adequately notified of the proceedings leading to the impugned order, considering the order was uploaded only on the web portal? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under the CGST/TNGST Act). Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the assessment order was uploaded solely to the web portal, and they lacked awareness of this fact, preventing them from participating in the proceedings and presenting their case. They claimed this lack of awareness was the reason for their non-appearance. Revenue's contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Assistant Commissioner(ST) and Deputy Commissioner(ST)).