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

Held

The Court held that while uploading notices on the GST portal is considered 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 to the notices sent via the portal. The Court found a lack of effective opportunity for the petitioner to be served with notices and orders. The Court noted that merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling formalities without ensuring effective service does not serve the purpose of the Act and leads to multiplicity of litigation. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 30.08.2024. The matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, conditional upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. The petitioner was also directed to file their reply/objection within three weeks of making the payment, after which the respondent would issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing and pass appropriate orders on merits. The Court expressly left undecided any issues related to the merits of the tax dispute itself.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Aruna Maligai, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.08.2024 in Form GST DRC-07, passed by the respondent, The Deputy State Tax Officer-I (ST), pertaining to the financial year 2019-20. 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 and requested an opportunity to present their case. The respondent's counsel fairly admitted that no personal hearing was provided before passing the order and agreed to remit the matter subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.08.2024, passed by the respondent, is arbitrary and illegal due to the lack of an effective opportunity of personal hearing for the petitioner, as contemplated under the GST Act? The petitioner argued that the notices uploaded on the GST portal were not effectively served as they were unaware of them, and the original notices were not furnished. This lack of awareness led to their failure to respond, and the subsequent order was passed ex parte without a personal hearing, violating principles of natural justice. 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. However, the respondent's counsel 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.