Sri Radhakrishna Multiple Industries PVT LTD vs. The Assistant Commissioner (State Tax)

Facts

The petitioner, Sri Radhakrishna Multiple Industries Pvt. Ltd., filed five writ petitions challenging orders dated 07.08.2023 issued by the Assistant Commissioner (State Tax), Madurai. These orders were passed for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2021-22. The impugned orders were preceded by notices in Form GST DRC-01A and Form GST DRC-01, issued between April and June 2023. The petitioner contended that these notices went unnoticed as they were hosted on the GST common portal, and similarly, personal hearing notices mentioned in the impugned orders were also missed. Consequently, the petitioner could not file objections or participate in personal hearings, leading to the adverse orders. The petitioner offered to deposit 5% of the disputed tax amount.

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders dated 07.08.2023 were to be set aside. The Court reasoned that the petitioner had not been afforded a proper opportunity to file their objections and participate in the proceedings, as the notices were not effectively served. The Court found that the notices hosted on the GST common portal, along with personal hearing notices, had gone unnoticed by the petitioner. Therefore, to ensure compliance with principles of natural justice, the case was remitted back to the respondent. The respondent was directed to pass a fresh order after the petitioner files a reply to the respective notices, including defenses raised in the writ petitions, and deposits 10% of the disputed amount without prejudice to their rights. The impugned orders, now quashed, were to be treated as an addendum to the show cause notices. The respondent was to pass the fresh order expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders dated 07.08.2023, passed by the respondent for the tax periods 2017-18 to 2021-22, are invalid and against the provisions of the Goods and Services Tax Acts, 2017, due to the petitioner not receiving proper notice and opportunity to file objections and attend personal hearings? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices issued in Form GST DRC-01A and Form GST DRC-01, as well as personal hearing notices, were not effectively served as they were hosted on the GST common portal and went unnoticed. This lack of proper communication prevented the petitioner from filing their objections and participating in the proceedings, thus violating principles of natural justice. The petitioner sought to have the orders set aside and a fresh opportunity to present their case. Respondent's arguments: The respondent was directed to ascertain whether the annexures to the impugned orders had been served on the petitioner. The judgment does not explicitly record further arguments from the respondent.