C Balasubramanian vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention regarding the ex parte nature of the order and the alleged lack of awareness due to online service of notice. Following the submission of the learned Additional Government Pleader regarding a common practice in similar cases, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount through the electronic cash ledger within thirty days of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance, the attachment on the petitioner's Input Tax Credit (ITC) account would be raised, and the impugned order would stand quashed. The petitioner would then be required to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days. The respondent authorities were directed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a final order within two months thereafter. The Court also stipulated that if the petitioner failed to comply with the deposit and reply deadlines, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced.

Facts

The petitioner, C. Balasubramanian, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order passed by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) for the tax period 2018-2019, and a consequential summary of order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (2nd Respondent). The petitioner contended that the notice was served only through the online portal, and he was unaware of the proceedings. The impugned order was dated 18.07.2024, with ARN AD3307220185962 and Form GST DRC-07 Reference No. ZD330724210943I. The petitioner sought to quash these orders and requested a fresh assessment with an opportunity for a personal hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether the ex parte order passed by the respondent authorities is illegal, without jurisdiction, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, particularly concerning the mode of service of notice under the GST Act? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a fresh assessment after being provided an opportunity of personal hearing? The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed without proper notice, as it was served only through the online portal, leading to a violation of natural justice. The petitioner sought a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. The respondents, through the learned Additional Government Pleader, submitted that in similar matters, relief was granted upon the deposit of 25% of the disputed tax amount.