M/S.Karur Taluk Lorry Owners Association vs. The Commercial Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the respondent is liable to be quashed. While uploading notices on the GST portal can be considered sufficient service, the Court observed that when there is no response from the taxpayer to notices sent via a particular mode, the issuing officer should explore other modes of service prescribed under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, preferably Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). This ensures effective service and avoids multiplicity of litigation. The Court found a lack of effective opportunity for the petitioner to serve notices/orders. Given the petitioner's willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner is directed to pay 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, file their reply within three weeks of payment, and the respondent shall then provide a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing before passing a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Karur Taluk Lorry Owners Association, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Karur. 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 petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. The respondent acknowledged uploading three notices on the GST portal but stated the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity. The respondent agreed to remit the matter back to them, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for want of jurisdiction and effective opportunity to the petitioner, in light of the reliance on Section 169 of the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction as they were not aware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal and were not given an effective opportunity of being heard. They relied on the principle that mere uploading of notices on a portal does not constitute effective service if the taxpayer remains unaware. The respondent argued that notices were uploaded on the GST portal, and the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity. They agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.