Tvl. Ravichandran Traders 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 should have explored other modes of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, especially when there was no response from the petitioner. The Court found a lack of effective opportunity for the petitioner to serve notices/orders. The Court noted the petitioner's willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. Consequently, the impugned order dated 24.02.2025 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, file their reply/objection within three weeks of payment, and the respondent to then consider the reply, issue a 14-day clear notice for personal hearing, and pass appropriate orders on merits. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ravichandran Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 24.02.2025 passed by the 2nd respondent, the State Tax Officer (FAC). 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 and requested an opportunity to present their case. The respondent's counsel fairly admitted that no personal hearing was provided before passing the order and agreed to remit the matter subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent is liable to be quashed for want of a personal hearing, in light of the petitioner's claim of not being aware of notices uploaded on the GST portal? 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 of notice is crucial and mere uploading on a portal, without ensuring actual awareness, may not constitute sufficient service. They also highlighted their willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided. They submitted that notices were uploaded on the GST portal, but acknowledged the petitioner's failure to avail the opportunity. They agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.