Tvl.Jeya Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-2

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 prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). The Court found a lack of effective service of notices and orders to the petitioner. The Court also noted the petitioner's willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.02.2025 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The setting aside of the order was made conditional upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks. The petitioner was directed to file their reply within three weeks of such payment, after which the respondent was to issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Jeya Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the show cause notice and three subsequent reminders uploaded on the GST common portal, leading to their failure to file a reply within the stipulated time. Consequently, the impugned order was passed without affording them an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. The respondent, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, acknowledged that no personal hearing was provided and agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.02.2025, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for gross violation of the Principles of Natural Justice, specifically for not affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as contemplated under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017? Petitioner's contentions: The petitioner argued that despite notices being uploaded on the GST portal, they were not aware of them and thus could not file a reply. The impugned order was passed without any personal hearing, violating natural justice. They were willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax to get an opportunity to present their case. Respondent's contentions: 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 order. The respondent agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.