Tvl Sri Mahalakshmi Blue Metals vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St) (Fac)

Facts

The petitioner, Tvl Sri Mahalakshmi Blue Metals, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.12.2024 and a consequential order dated 08.07.2025 rejecting their rectification application, both passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST) (FAC). The petitioner contended that notices were uploaded on the GST portal, but their accountant was unaware, leading to a failure to file a reply and receive a personal hearing. Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed. Their subsequent rectification application was also rejected. The petitioner offered to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount and sought an opportunity to present their case. The respondent argued that notices were uploaded, and the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity, asserting that principles of natural justice were not violated. The respondent suggested filing an appeal against the original order.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal, but the petitioner claimed unawareness and non-receipt of the original notice. In such circumstances, the Court found that the impugned assessment order was passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals in the show cause notice. However, the respondent argued that objections were considered during the rectification application, making the principles of natural justice inapplicable. The Court, while dismissing the writ petition, granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal against the original assessment order dated 09.12.2024. This liberty is conditional upon the petitioner paying 20% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent (10% as statutory pre-deposit for the appeal and an additional 10%). Upon compliance, the Appellate Authority is directed to consider the appeal on its merits, without pressing the limitation period, and provide sufficient opportunity to the petitioner.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned assessment order dated 09.12.2024, passed by the respondent, is liable to be quashed for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for not providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, and for passing the order without proper notice, contrary to statutory provisions? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that all notices were uploaded to the GST common portal, and their accountant's lack of awareness led to a failure to respond within the stipulated time. They contended that the impugned order was passed without providing any opportunity for a personal hearing. Furthermore, the rejection of their rectification application prevented them from filing an appeal against the original order. They expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount and requested an opportunity to present their case. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent contended that notices were uploaded on the GST online portal, and the petitioner failed to utilize this opportunity. They asserted that all objections and submissions made by the petitioner were duly considered at the time of passing the rejection order for the rectification application, thus negating any violation of natural justice. The respondent suggested that the appropriate recourse for the petitioner was to file an appeal against the original order.