M/S. Sri Sai Poornima Microns vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner(St)

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were violative of the principles of natural justice because the petitioner, having had their registration cancelled, would not have had access to the GST portal. While acknowledging that uploading to the portal is a recognized mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the Act, the Court found that in this specific circumstance, it did not constitute proper service. The Court also considered the medical record filed by the petitioner. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits 10% of the disputed tax within six weeks. Upon compliance, the attachment order would be revoked. The Court clarified that this order does not preclude the proper officer from issuing fresh notices to the petitioner's registered address via registered post and proceeding with the assessment proceedings in accordance with the law.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Sri Sai Poornima Microns, filed a writ petition challenging orders passed by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No. 1) under the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, for the tax periods 2020-21 to 2023-24. The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were not served personally but uploaded to the GST portal, which they claim is insufficient service, especially since their GST registration was cancelled on February 16, 2024, rendering them unable to access the portal. The petitioner also cited personal health issues of the deponent's husband as a reason for their unawareness of the proceedings. Subsequently, a garnishee notice was issued to the petitioner's bank to attach their account due to non-payment of tax dues.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service under the CGST/APGST Act, 2017, particularly when the petitioner's registration has been cancelled, thereby preventing portal access? (Question of law turning on Section 169(1)(d) of the CGST Act). 2. Whether the impugned orders are violative of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner's right to be heard? Petitioner's contentions: The notices and orders were not served on the petitioner, and uploading them to the GST portal is not sufficient service, citing previous High Court judgments. Due to the cancellation of registration, the petitioner had no access to the portal and was unaware of the proceedings. Therefore, the impugned orders are violative of natural justice and should be set aside. Respondents' contentions: Making notices and orders available on the common portal is a recognized mode of service under Section 169(1)(d) of the Act. The respondent followed the procedure contemplated under Section 161(d) of the Act, and the uploaded notices and assessment orders cannot be faulted. They opposed granting any unconditional order due to the delay in challenging the impugned order dated March 3, 2025.