Tvl Ravichandran Traders vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service, an officer should explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, especially when there is no response from the taxpayer. Merely fulfilling formalities by passing an ex parte order without ensuring effective service leads to multiplicity of litigation. The Court found a lack of effective opportunities for the petitioner to receive notices and orders. In light of the petitioner's willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, file their reply within three weeks of payment, and the respondent shall then provide a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Ravichandran Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.08.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2, Aruppukottai Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that notices and communications were uploaded on the GST common portal, but they were unaware of these, 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 sought an opportunity to present their case. The respondent, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, admitted that no personal hearing was provided prior to the impugned order and agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed for non-compliance with principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of an effective opportunity for personal hearing, in light of the petitioner's claim of not being aware of notices uploaded on the GST portal? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that since they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal, they could not file a reply. The impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity for a personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. They relied on the willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for re-consideration. Respondent's argument: 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. They agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.