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. The Court noted that the petitioners had paid the principal amount of Rs. 1,29,584/-. Considering this deposit exceeded 10% of the disputed amount, the Court stayed further recovery. The Court directed the respondents to release the petitioners' bank accounts to enable them to continue their business. The deposited amount of Rs. 1,29,584/- was deemed sufficient for entertaining an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The petitioners were granted liberty to challenge the recovery orders before the Appellate Authority, which was directed to pass a speaking order on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing within three months. The issue of whether service solely on the portal is sufficient was not expressly decided but was the basis for the interim 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 proper service of notices was not effected under Section 169 of the CGST Act, as notices were only placed on the portal and not sent via registered email or post. This led to ex-parte orders being passed, which in turn resulted in the seizure of their bank accounts, halting their 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 by uploading 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, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioners contended that service under Section 169 of the CGST Act requires notices to be sent to the taxpayer's registered email or by registered post, and mere placement on the portal is insufficient. They argued that this lack of proper service led to ex-parte orders and the subsequent seizure of their bank accounts, crippling their business. Revenue's Argument: The judgment does not explicitly record any arguments made by the respondents on the issue of service. However, the respondents are the State of Rajasthan and the Union of India, represented by various tax authorities.