Tvl. Sun Chemical Oil Industries vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, the respondent, despite receiving no response to the show cause notices, should have explored other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). Merely fulfilling formalities by uploading notices without ensuring effective service, especially after GST registration cancellation and when the petitioner claimed unawareness, leads to ex parte orders that violate principles of natural justice and result in multiplicity of litigation. The Court noted that communications should have been sent to the petitioner's email ID after voluntary cancellation of registration. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside due to the lack of effective opportunity and violation of natural justice. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, after which they must file their reply within three weeks. The respondent is then to consider the reply, issue a 14-day notice for personal hearing, and pass fresh orders on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Sun Chemical Oil Industries, filed two writ petitions challenging orders dated 18.02.2025 and 23.10.2025 passed by the State Tax Officer, Tuticorin-II Assessment Circle. The petitioner's GST registration was voluntarily cancelled on 11.01.2022. Subsequently, notices and communications were uploaded on the GST common portal. The petitioner claims they were unaware of these notices and therefore failed to file their replies within the stipulated time. Consequently, the impugned orders were passed by the respondent without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to get an opportunity to present their case.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondent are illegal and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice due to the lack of an effective opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, particularly when the GST registration had been cancelled? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and effective service of notice). Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that since their GST registration was cancelled, all communications should have been sent to their registered email ID, which was not done. They were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal and thus could not file their replies. The impugned orders were passed without providing any opportunity for personal hearing, violating natural justice. They are willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to get a chance to present their case. Respondent's contentions: The respondent argued that notices were uploaded on the GST online portal, which constitutes sufficient service. However, the respondent fairly admitted that no personal hearing was provided prior to the impugned orders. The respondent requested the matter be remitted back subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax amount.