Tvl Paulraj vs. The State Tax Officer Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl. Paulraj, represented by its Proprietor Paulraj, filed a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 26.04.2024, passed by the respondent, The State Tax Officer/Commercial Tax Officer, Ettayapuram Assessment Circle, Thoothukudi District. This order was passed under Section 73 of the TNGST Act, 2017, for the tax period 2018-19, citing defects such as a mismatch between GSTR 3B and GSTR 1. The petitioner contended that the entire assessment process was conducted solely by uploading the show cause notice and the order on the portal, which prevented them from utilizing the opportunity to respond. The respondent argued that such uploading constitutes valid service as per the Act and rules, and the petition was filed belatedly without availing the opportunity.

Held

The Court held that while the respondent's action of uploading the show cause notice and the order on the portal might be considered valid service under the Act, in the interest of natural justice and considering the petitioner's submission of having suffered a road accident, one opportunity should be granted. The Court found merit in allowing the petitioner to present their case. Consequently, the impugned order dated 26.04.2024 was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the respondent for fresh disposal. The petitioner was directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax amount within four weeks. Upon deposit, the petitioner would be permitted to appear before the respondent, file a reply, submit supporting documents, and raise all factual and legal grounds. The respondent is to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law. The deposited amount is subject to the final outcome and can be adjusted against other liabilities if the petitioner's plea is accepted for any of the years 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. No costs were imposed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of the show cause notice and the assessment order on the GST portal, without any other form of service, constitutes proper service of notice and opportunity to be heard under the TNGST Act, 2017, and its rules? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the sole reliance on portal uploads for issuing the show cause notice and the final order denied them a meaningful opportunity to participate in the assessment proceedings. They claimed this method of communication was insufficient to ensure they were aware of and could respond to the allegations. Respondent's Argument: The respondent contended that the Act and the rules permit and consider the uploading of notices and orders on the portal as valid service. Therefore, the petitioner's failure to respond was a consequence of not availing the opportunity provided through the portal, and the writ petition was filed belatedly.