Tvl.Arivunithi Engineering Contractors vs. The State Tax Officer
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Tvl.Arivunithi Engineer Ingcontractorss, filed a writ petition challenging an order in Form GST DRC-07 dated 20.07.2024, issued by the respondent, The State Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that notices for personal hearing were issued through the portal in contravention of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner cited a previous order of the High Court in W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025, which held that service of notices, summons, and orders should be through the portal. Despite the petitioner having knowledge of the proceedings and filing a representation seeking an extension to file a reply on 06.06.2024, no reply was filed. However, the Court noted that personal hearing notices were issued only through the portal.
Held
The Court held that while the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and had sought an extension to file a reply, the personal hearing notices were issued solely through the portal. This was found to be a contravention of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and a failure to strictly comply with the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order dated 20.07.2024 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to appear before the respondent on 17.02.2025, on which date they were to file their objections and supporting documents. The respondent was then directed to pass orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that procedural irregularities in the service of notices, even in the presence of knowledge, can lead to the quashing of an order if they violate statutory provisions and principles of natural justice.
Key Issues
1. Whether the issuance of personal hearing notices solely through the portal contravenes Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and violates the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that notices for personal hearing were issued in contravention of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. They relied on a previous High Court order in W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025, which stipulated that service of notices, summons, and orders must be through the portal. This procedural defect, according to the petitioner, vitiates the impugned order. Respondent's Argument: The respondent did not record any specific arguments against the petitioner's contention regarding the mode of service of notices. However, the judgment notes that the petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings and had sought an extension to file a reply.
Sections Cited
Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: and
The case of the petitioner is that the notices for personal hearing were issued in portal in contravention to Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. He would also refer to an order of this Court made in a batch of writ petitions in W.P.(MD) No.26481 of 2024 etc., dated 06.01.2025, wherein it has been held that service of notice, summons and also orders should be in portal.
The petitioner had knowledge of the proceedings, as he himself had filed a representation on 06.06.2024 seeking extension of time to file his reply. In spite of such request, the petitioner has not filed a reply. But however, considering the fact that the personal hearing notices issued to the petitioner were only through portal, this Court is of the view that there has been no strict compliance of the principles of natural justice. In such view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on 17.02.2025 on which date, he shall without fail file his objections and documents in support of his case. After hearing the petitioner on the said date, the respondent shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction, this Writ Petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes abr To The State Tax Officer, Woraiyur Assessment Circle, No.C/2, Thillai Nagar, Tiruchirappalli-620 013. _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis K.KUMARESH BABU, J. abr Dated: 30.01.2025 _________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Reproduced from the public record of the Madras High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.