Tvl.Mars Group Of Firm vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, the officer should have applied their mind and explored other modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act, especially when there was no response from the petitioner. Merely passing an ex-parte order by fulfilling formalities without ensuring effective service leads to multiplicity of litigation. The Court found a lack of effective opportunities for the petitioner to receive notices and orders. Given that the petitioner had already paid 67% of the disputed tax amount, the Court was inclined to set aside the impugned order. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 and remanded the matter 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, Tvl.Mars Group of Firm, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2 (2nd respondent). 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, violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner also stated that they had already paid 67% of the disputed tax amount. The respondents acknowledged that no personal hearing was provided prior to the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent, dated 19.06.2025, is liable to be quashed for violation of principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, as argued by the petitioner? 2. Whether the uploading of notices on the GST common portal, without ensuring effective service or exploring alternative modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act, constitutes a valid service of notice, as contended by the respondents? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice as they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal and were not afforded a personal hearing. They relied on the fact that 67% of the disputed tax had already been paid and requested an opportunity to present their case. Respondents' arguments: The respondents contended that notices were uploaded on the GST portal, which they considered sufficient service. However, they fairly admitted that no personal hearing was provided and requested the matter be remitted back to the respondent.