The Sri Vetri Cars Private Limited vs. The State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 02.01.2025 was passed without affording an effective opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. While acknowledging that uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service, the Court emphasized that when there is no response from the taxpayer to notices sent via a particular mode, the officer should explore other valid modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), to ensure effective communication. Merely fulfilling formalities by passing ex-parte orders without ensuring effective service leads to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, the Court found a lack of effective opportunities for the petitioner to receive notices and orders. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. The petitioner was also directed to file their reply within three weeks of making the payment, after which the respondent would issue a 14-day clear notice for personal hearing and pass a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, The Sri Vetri Cars Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, Trichy. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the show cause notice and subsequent personal hearing notices uploaded on the GST common portal, leading to the impugned order being passed without providing an effective opportunity to be heard. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. The respondent acknowledged that notices were uploaded but admitted that no personal hearing was provided before passing the order. The respondent agreed to remit the matter back to them, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 02.01.2025, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of effective opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that all notices, including the show cause notice and personal hearing notices, were uploaded on the GST portal, and they were not aware of these communications. Consequently, they failed to file a reply within the stipulated time, and the order was passed ex-parte without a proper hearing. They relied on the principle that an effective opportunity to be heard is a fundamental aspect of natural justice. The respondent, while admitting that notices were uploaded, conceded that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the impugned order. They agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, contingent on the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.