Tvl. Elango Constructions 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 repeated reminders and no response from the petitioner, should have explored other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act to ensure effective communication. Merely fulfilling formalities by uploading on the portal without ensuring actual receipt or awareness by the assessee would not serve the purpose of the Act and could lead to multiplicity of litigation. The Court found a lack of effective opportunity for the petitioner to receive notices and orders. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside. The Court directed the petitioner to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks, after which the setting aside of the orders would take effect. The petitioner was then to file their reply within three weeks of payment, and the respondent was to provide a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing fresh orders on merits. The ratio decidendi is that tax authorities must ensure effective service of notices, exploring all prescribed modes if initial attempts fail, to uphold principles of natural justice and avoid ex parte orders based on mere procedural compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Elango Constructions, filed three writ petitions challenging orders passed by the State Tax Officer, Nanguneri Assessment Circle. The impugned orders were dated January 20, 2025, December 2, 2024, and December 10, 2024. The petitioner contended that while notices and reminders were uploaded on the GST common portal, they were unaware of these communications and thus failed to file their replies within the stipulated time. Consequently, the orders were passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount in each case to obtain 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, specifically concerning the adequacy of service of notice under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that notices uploaded solely on the GST portal, without further effective steps, did not constitute proper service, leading to a violation of natural justice as they were denied an opportunity for a personal hearing. They relied on the principle that effective service is crucial for due process. The respondent, through the Additional Government Pleader, conceded that no personal hearing was provided. They acknowledged that notices were uploaded on the portal but admitted the petitioner's failure to respond. The respondent agreed to remit the matter back to them, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.