M/S.Dehens Store vs. The Deputy Commissioner (GST-Appeal) (State Tax)

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes 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 a lack of effective opportunities for the petitioner to receive notices and orders. Consequently, the impugned order dated 16.08.2024 was set aside. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on the condition that the petitioner pays 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 issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s.Dehens Store, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.08.2024 passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer (2nd Respondent) and a consequential attachment order. The petitioner contended that all notices 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 petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. The respondent acknowledged that no personal hearing was provided prior to the impugned order and agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 16.08.2024, passed by the 2nd Respondent, is liable to be quashed for want of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording them an opportunity of personal hearing, as they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal. They sought an opportunity to contest their case. The respondent conceded that no personal hearing was provided and agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.