Tvl.Aruna Maligai vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - I (St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned order was passed without affording an effective opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. While service by uploading on the GST portal is considered sufficient, the Court noted that when there is no response to notices sent via a particular mode, the officer should explore other valid modes of service prescribed under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, such as Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), to ensure effective service. Merely fulfilling formalities without ensuring effective communication leads to multiplicity of litigation. The Court found a lack of effective opportunities for service. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration. This was made conditional upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. The petitioner was also directed to file their reply/objections within three weeks of making the payment, after which the respondent would fix a personal hearing and pass a fresh order on merits.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Aruna Maligai, challenged an order dated 22.04.2024 in Form GST DRC-07, issued by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer-I (ST), pertaining to FY 2018-19. 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 respondent's counsel fairly admitted that no personal hearing was granted prior to the impugned order. The petitioner expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 22.04.2024, passed by the respondent, is arbitrary and illegal due to the lack of a personal hearing for the petitioner, contrary to principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the service of notices solely through the GST common portal, without exploring other modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act, constitutes effective service, especially when there is no response from the assessee? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity for a personal hearing, as they were unaware of the notices uploaded on the GST portal. They relied on the principle that an effective opportunity to present their case was denied. They also offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount. Respondent's arguments: The respondent acknowledged that notices were uploaded on the GST portal but admitted that no personal hearing was provided. They agreed to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.