Tvl Madhu Shree Granites vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, the respondent, upon receiving no response to repeated reminders, should have explored other modes of service as prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). The Court found that merely fulfilling procedural formalities without ensuring effective service of notice does not serve the purpose of the Act and leads to multiplicity of litigation. The Court noted that the petitioner was not afforded an effective opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the impugned order dated 29.04.2024 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 (which the petitioner agreed to pay as Rs. 75,000/-) within four weeks. The petitioner was also directed to file their reply/objections within three weeks of making the payment, after which the respondent would fix a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Madhu Shree Granites, represented by its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Madurai Rural East Assessment Circle. The impugned order pertains to the tax period 2018-19 and relates to a demand of Rs. 2,86,166/- towards reversing Input Tax Credit (ITC), of which Rs. 2,11,007/- had already been recovered. The petitioner contended that notices, including a show cause notice and reminders, were uploaded on the GST common portal, but they were unaware of these communications and thus failed to file a reply or attend a personal hearing. The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing was provided. The petitioner offered to pay Rs. 75,000/- towards the disputed amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 29.04.2024, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioner was not afforded an adequate opportunity to present their case, particularly a personal hearing, in accordance with Section 169 of the GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that despite notices being uploaded on the GST portal, they were unaware of them and therefore could not file a reply or participate in a personal hearing. They emphasized that the impugned order was passed ex parte without providing a proper opportunity to be heard. They also stated their willingness to pay Rs. 75,000/- to resolve the matter and requested an opportunity to present their case afresh. Respondent's arguments: The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. They agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying the agreed amount of Rs. 75,000/-.