Tvl. Enfive Systems Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, the assessing officer should have explored other modes of communication 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 reasoned that merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling formalities without ensuring effective service leads to multiplicity of litigation and wastage of judicial and administrative time. Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.03.2024 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on the condition that the petitioner pays 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. The petitioner was directed to file their reply and objections within three weeks of making the payment, and the respondent was to provide a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Enfive Systems Private Limited, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the State Tax Officer, Dindigul (Rural) 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 respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, admitted that no personal hearing was provided prior to the impugned order, although notices were uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.03.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of an effective opportunity of hearing to the petitioner? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that notices uploaded on the GST portal were not received or were not effectively communicated, leading to their inability to respond. They contended that the impugned order was passed ex parte without affording a proper opportunity of personal hearing, thus violating natural justice. They relied on the principle that service through portal alone, without ensuring actual receipt or exploring other modes of communication, might not constitute effective service. Respondent's Contention: The respondent admitted that notices were uploaded on the GST portal but acknowledged that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The respondent agreed to remit the matter back to the assessing officer, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.