Nvn Enterprises And Sri Kalavathi Agencies vs. Deputy State Tax Officer

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 applied their mind and explored other prescribed modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). Merely fulfilling formalities by passing an ex parte order without ensuring effective service leads to multiplicity of litigation. The Court found a lack of effective opportunity for the petitioner to receive notices and orders. Consequently, the impugned order dated 13.08.2024 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. The petitioner was directed 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 a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Nvn Enterprises and Sri Kalavathi Agencies, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 13.08.2024 and a consequential DRC-07 dated 13.08.2024, both issued by the Deputy State Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that while notices were uploaded on the GST common portal, they were unaware of these communications and therefore failed to file a reply within the stipulated time. Consequently, the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount and sought an opportunity to present their case. The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided prior to the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices on the GST common portal constitutes sufficient service of notice, especially when the petitioner claims non-awareness, and if not, whether the impugned order passed without personal hearing is sustainable under Section 169 of the CGST Act? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that mere uploading of notices on the portal, without actual knowledge or receipt, does not amount to effective service. They contended that the respondent failed to explore other valid modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, leading to an arbitrary order passed without affording a proper opportunity of hearing. Respondent's argument: The respondent admitted that notices were uploaded on the portal but also fairly conceded that no personal hearing was provided. They agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.