C Balasubramanian vs. The State Tax Officer (St)

Held

The Court quashed the impugned order passed by the respondent authorities. The petitioner was directed 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 was to be raised forthwith. The petitioner was also required to reply to the show cause notice within thirty days thereafter. The respondent authorities were directed to provide an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and pass a final order within two months. The Court stipulated that if the petitioner failed to deposit the amount and submit the reply within the stipulated period, the benefit of this order would be automatically recalled, and the impugned order could be enforced. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Facts

The petitioner, C. Balasubramanian, a contractor, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order passed by the State Tax Officer (1st Respondent) and a consequential summary of order passed by the Commercial Tax Officer (2nd Respondent) for the tax period 2019-2020. The petitioner contended that the notice was served only through the online portal, and therefore, he was unaware of the proceedings. The impugned order was dated August 21, 2024, with ARN AD3305240662663 and DRC-07 Reference No. ZD3308241867043. 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, given that the petitioner claims to have not been aware of the proceedings due to online-only notice service? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the ex parte order was passed in violation of natural justice as he was not aware of the proceedings because notices were served only through the online portal. He sought a fresh assessment with a personal hearing. Revenue's Argument: The Additional Government Pleader submitted that in similar matters, relief was granted upon the condition that the assessee deposits 25% of the disputed tax amount.