Tvl.Amirtha Super Market vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 2

Held

The Court held that the impugned order of assessment dated 16.03.2024 is set aside. The reasoning was based on the petitioner's contention that the notices and the final order were not properly served, having been uploaded only on the GSTIN portal, thereby denying them an opportunity to be heard. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission that they were unable to access the portal and participate in the proceedings. To provide a chance for the petitioner to present their case, the Court directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks of receiving a copy of the order. Upon compliance, the impugned order would be treated as a show cause notice, and the petitioner would have four weeks to submit their objections with supporting documents. The respondent is then required to consider these objections, provide a hearing, and pass a fresh order in accordance with the law. The Court also stipulated that if the deposit or objections are not filed within the stipulated periods, the original impugned order would stand revived. The ratio decidendi is that a proper opportunity of hearing, including effective service of notices, is essential before passing an assessment order, and non-compliance with this principle warrants setting aside the order.

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl.Amirtha Super Market, a registered dealer under the GST Act, filed a writ petition challenging an order of assessment dated 16.03.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-2019. The petitioner, engaged in the supply of household articles, had filed its returns and paid taxes. A scrutiny under Section 61 of the TNGST Act revealed a mismatch between GSTR-3B and GSTR-2A. The petitioner contended that notices, including Form GST ASMT-10, Form GST DRC-01A, and summary of Show Cause Notice in DRC-01, were issued only through the GSTIN portal and not served by tender or RPAD. Consequently, the petitioner was unable to access the portal, respond to the notices, or participate in the adjudication proceedings, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner stated readiness to explain the discrepancies if given an opportunity and offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order of assessment dated 16.03.2024, passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer – 2, is liable to be quashed on the ground of non-service of notices and the consequent denial of an opportunity to the petitioner to present its case? The petitioner argued that the notices and the final order were uploaded only on the GSTIN portal, and not served through conventional methods like tender or Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). This lack of proper service prevented the petitioner from accessing the portal and participating in the proceedings, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the judgment in M/s.K.Balakrishnan, Balu Cables vs. O/o. the Assistant Commissioner of GST & Central Excise. The petitioner also cited technical glitches and the learning curve associated with the GST e-mechanism as reasons for their inability to respond promptly. The respondent, represented by the Additional Government Pleader, did not raise any serious objection to the petitioner's request for an opportunity to present their case, particularly in light of the offer to deposit 25% of the disputed tax.