M/S Lakshya Bricks vs. State Of Rajasthan

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioners' argument that service was not properly effected under Section 169 of the CGST Act, as notices were allegedly only placed on the portal and not sent via registered email or post. The Court noted that the petitioners had paid the principal amount of Rs. 1,29,584/-, which was more than 10% of the total disputed amount. Considering this, the Court stayed further recovery and directed the respondents to release the petitioners' bank accounts to allow them to continue their business. The deposition of Rs. 1,29,584/- was deemed sufficient for entertaining an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioners were permitted to challenge the recovery orders before the Appellate Authority, which was directed to pass a speaking order on merits after providing an opportunity of hearing within three months. The issue of proper service under Section 169 and the validity of ex-parte orders were implicitly addressed by the relief granted.

Facts

The petitioners, M/s Lakshya Bricks and its partner Anil Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging the seizure of their bank accounts. The petitioners argued that notices were not properly served, as they were only uploaded on the GST portal and not sent via registered email or post, as stipulated by Section 169 of the CGST Act. This alleged improper service led to ex-parte orders being passed, resulting in the seizure of bank accounts and halting the petitioners' business operations. The petitioners stated they had already paid the principal amount of Rs. 1,29,584/-, with the total amount including interest being Rs. 3,53,778/-.

Key Issues

1. Whether service of notices solely through upload on the GST portal, without sending to the taxpayer's registered email or by registered post, constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act? 2. Whether the ex-parte orders passed due to alleged improper service, leading to the seizure of bank accounts, are sustainable? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioners contended that service was not properly effected under Section 169 of the CGST Act. They argued that notices must be sent to the taxpayer's registered email or by registered post, and mere placement on the portal is insufficient. They further argued that due to this improper service, they were unaware of the notices and could not contest them, leading to ex-parte orders and the seizure of their bank accounts, which paralyzed their business. They relied on the fact that the principal amount had been paid. Respondents' Arguments: The judgment does not record specific arguments from the respondents regarding the validity of service or the ex-parte orders. However, they accepted notice.