Tvl Sri Mahalakshmi Biue Metal vs. The Assistant Commissioner(St)(Fac)

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, the respondent, in the absence of any response from the petitioner to the notices sent via this mode, should have explored other valid 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 opportunity for the petitioner to serve notices/orders. The Court noted the petitioner's willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.02.2025 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 amount within four weeks. The petitioner was directed to file their reply within three weeks of such payment, after which the respondent was to provide a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Sri Mahalakshmi Blue Metal, filed a writ petition before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court challenging an order dated 12.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Commissioner(ST)(FAC), Aruppukottai. The petitioner contended that all notices and communications were uploaded on the GST common portal, and their accountant's unawareness of these led to a failure 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. The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided prior to the impugned order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 12.02.2025, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for being without jurisdiction and in violation of statutory provisions, specifically concerning the opportunity of personal hearing under the GST Act? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing an adequate opportunity for a personal hearing, as they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal. They relied on the principle that effective service of notice is crucial and that mere uploading on the portal, without confirmation of receipt or awareness by the assessee, may not constitute sufficient service, especially when other modes of service are available. Respondent's arguments: The respondent admitted that no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. They agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount, as proposed by the petitioner.