Tvl M.Muthukumar Store vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, the respondent officer should have exercised due diligence and explored other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, especially when there was no response from the petitioner. The Court found that merely fulfilling formalities by uploading notices without ensuring effective service and providing an opportunity for personal hearing leads to ex parte orders, which are counterproductive and result in multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was a lack of effective opportunity for the petitioner to serve notices and present their case. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. This was made conditional upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks and filing their reply/objections within three weeks thereafter. The respondent was directed to provide a 14-day clear notice for personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl M.Muthukumar Store, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer I, Melur Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that all notices and communications were uploaded on the GST common portal, and they were unaware of these notices, leading to their failure to file a reply within the stipulated time. Consequently, the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, admitted that no personal hearing was provided but stated that notices were uploaded on the portal. The respondent agreed to remit the matter back to the officer, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 12.02.2025, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer I, is liable to be quashed for want of a personal hearing and effective service of notice, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the uploading of notices on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service, or should the respondent have explored other modes of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, as contended by the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, as they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal. They relied on the principle that effective service is crucial for due process. They also offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount to secure an opportunity to present their case. Respondent's arguments: The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided. While asserting that notices were uploaded on the GST portal, they fairly admitted the lack of personal hearing and requested the matter to be remitted back to the respondent, contingent upon the petitioner's payment of 25% of the disputed tax.