Tvl Sakthi Murugan Lorry Service Vs Deputy State Tax Officer
Date: May 7, 2025
Subject Matter
When there was no response from the tax payer to the notice uploaded in the portal, the Officer should send the notice through RPAD
Summary
The writ petition was filed by a lorry service provider challenging an order dated 23.04.2024, which imposed tax and penalty under GST. The petitioner received a notice (Form DRC-01) under Section 73 of the GST Act on 27.12.2023, which was uploaded on the GST portal but went unnoticed. Consequently, the respondent passed an assessment order without giving the petitioner a chance for a personal hearing. During the hearing, the petitioner expressed willingness to deposit 25% of the disputed tax if the court decided to set aside the order and remand the case to the authority for reconsideration. The government advocate concurred with this approach. The court found that the notice was inadequately served, as the petitioner was not effectively informed about the show cause notice. It highlighted that merely uploading the notice on the portal does not constitute proper service, especially when previous attempts to contact the petitioner did not yield any response. The officer should have pursued other methods of service as outlined in Section 169. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration, instructing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks, submit a response with supporting documents, and be afforded a proper opportunity for a personal hearing. The writ petition was disposed of without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This Writ Petition has been filed, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for records of the Respondent in GST No. 33AZEPS2122AlZ2/2018-19 dated 23.04.2024 and quash the same.
2. The petitioner is a lorry service provider with GST NO.GSTIN:33AZEPS2122A1Z2. According to the petitioner, he was issued with a notice in Form DRC-01 on 27.12.2023, under Section 73 of the GST Act. As the said notice was uploaded in the respondents GST portal, the same went unnoticed by the petitioner. Later, the respondent passed the impugned order, dated 23.04.2024, imposing the tax and penalty.
3. Heard Mr.P.Suresh Babu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.Prashant Kiran, learned Government Advocate (T), who takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
4. By consent of both parties, the main Writ Petitions are taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, in the event, this Court deems it fit to set aside the impugned order and remands it to the Authority for fresh consideration.
6. The learned Government Advocate (T) for the first respondent fairly submitted that since the petitioner had voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, the prayer sought for by the petitioner may be considered.
7. Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and upon perusal of the materials, it is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to him. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notices is illegal and unsustainable.
8. Assuming that sending notices by uploading in the portal is sufficient service, when the Officer who was sending the repeated reminders, received no response from the petitioner, he ought to have applied his/her mind and explored diligently the possibility of sending notices by other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act. Mere uploading notice repeatedly without ensuring their receipt by the petitioner cannot be considered as effective service. Such mechanical compliance does not serve any useful purpose and the same will only lead to multiplicity of litigations, wasting not only the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority / Tribunal and this Court as well. Thus, when there was no response from the tax payer to the notice uploaded in the portal, the Officer should have sent the notice through RPAD, which would have served the purpose.
9. Therefore, I find that there was a failure of effective opportunity to the petitioner to reply to the show cause notice. Hence, I am inclined to set-aside the impugned order with the following directions:-
i) The impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 23.04.2024 is set aside.
ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration.
iii) The petitioner is directed to deposit 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner has voluntarily come forward to make, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
iv) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents within a period of two weeks.
v) Thereupon, the first respondent is directed to consider the reply and issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter in accordance with law.
10. With the above observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.