M/S.Grace Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-1

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, the respondent should have explored other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, especially when there was no response from the petitioner. The Court found that merely fulfilling formalities by passing an ex parte order without effective service would not serve the purpose and could lead to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was a lack of effective opportunity for the petitioner to receive notices and orders. Consequently, the impugned order dated 06.02.2025 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file their reply and objections within three weeks of receiving the order. The respondent was then to issue a 14-day clear notice, fix a date for personal hearing, and pass a fresh order on merits after hearing the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Grace Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 06.02.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-1 for the assessment year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that all notices and communications were uploaded on the GST common portal, and they were unaware of these notices, leading to their failure to file a reply within the stipulated time. Consequently, the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing. The respondent, while admitting that no personal hearing was provided, stated that notices were uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner also mentioned that approximately 78% of the disputed tax amount had already been levied.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 06.02.2025, passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed for being cryptic, non-speaking, illegal, arbitrary, and passed without jurisdiction, as argued by the petitioner. 2. Whether the service of notice solely through the GST common portal, without ensuring effective communication or providing an opportunity for personal hearing, constitutes a valid procedure, as contended by the petitioner. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing an effective opportunity to present their case, as they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal. They also highlighted that a significant portion of the disputed tax had already been levied. They sought an opportunity to present their case and requested the quashing of the impugned order. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. They maintained that notices were uploaded on the GST online portal, but acknowledged the petitioner's failure to avail the opportunity. The respondent agreed to remit the matter back to them.