Muthusamy Nataraj (33Afapn9126K2Zc) vs. State Tax Officer Palani I Assessment Circle

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service, the respondent, despite receiving no response to 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). The Court found that merely fulfilling formalities by uploading notices on the portal without ensuring effective service would not serve the purpose of the Act and could lead to multiplicity of litigation. The Court noted the petitioner's submission that over 25% of the disputed tax had been recovered. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file their reply within three weeks, and the respondent was ordered to provide a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing fresh orders.

Facts

The petitioner, Muthusamy Nataraj, filed three writ petitions challenging orders dated February 19, 2025, March 27, 2025, and June 17, 2025, passed by the State Tax Officer, Palani I Assessment Circle. The petitioner contended that all notices and communications were uploaded on the GST common portal, and due to a lack of awareness of these uploads, they failed to file their replies within the stipulated time. Consequently, the impugned orders were passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner also stated that more than 25% of the disputed tax amount had already been recovered. The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided prior to the passing of the impugned orders.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders, passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, are liable to be quashed, particularly when notices were uploaded on the GST portal but not effectively served on the petitioner? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal, leading to their failure to respond. They claimed that the impugned orders were passed without granting them a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. They relied on the fact that over 25% of the disputed tax had been recovered and requested an opportunity to present their case. 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 orders. The respondent agreed to remit the matter back to them.