Shree J.V. Agency vs. The Appellate Deputy Commissioner(GST)

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, an officer issuing repeated reminders without a response from the taxpayer should explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act. The Court found that merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling formalities without ensuring effective service does not serve any useful purpose and leads to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, the Court concluded that there was a lack of effective opportunities for the petitioner to receive notices and orders. Consequently, the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file their reply within three weeks, and upon receipt, the respondent was to issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Shree J.V. Agency, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 15.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (GST). The petitioner contended that all notices and communications were uploaded on the GST common portal, which they were unaware of, 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 revenue, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, admitted that while notices were uploaded on the portal, no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the impugned order. The revenue agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 15.12.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner (GST), is liable to be quashed on the grounds that it was passed without affording the petitioner an effective opportunity of personal hearing, despite notices being uploaded only on the GST portal and the petitioner claiming lack of awareness? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity for a personal hearing. They contended that they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal and therefore failed to submit their reply. They requested an opportunity to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order. Revenue's arguments: The revenue conceded that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of the impugned order. They admitted that notices were uploaded on the GST portal but the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity. The revenue requested the Court to remit the matter back to the respondent.