Calyx Coronation Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
Date: August 21, 2025
Subject Matter
GST Assessment Order Set Aside Due to Ineffective Service and Denial of Hearing
Summary
Summary and Findings:
Ineffective Service of Notice: The respondent uploaded all Show Cause Notices (SCNs) and communications only under the "View Additional Notice and Orders" column on the GST portal. The petitioner claimed unawareness of these notices. The Court acknowledged that while uploading to the portal is a sufficient service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act, relying solely on this method when there is no response only fulfills "empty formalities" and leads to multiplicity of litigation.
Mandate for Alternate Modes of Service: The Court established a principle that when a taxpayer fails to respond to a notice sent via a single mode (like the portal), the officer should actively explore other modes prescribed in Section 169(1), preferably by RPAD (Registered Post with Acknowledgment Due), to ensure effective service and achieve the object of the GST Act.
Denial of Personal Hearing: The learned Additional Government Pleader fairly admitted that no opportunity for a personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to passing the ex parte impugned order, which constitutes a violation of natural justice.
Tax Deposit: The petitioner submitted that they had already paid more than 30% of the disputed tax amount, which the Court acknowledged.
Ruling:
The impugned order dated July 1, 2024, is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
Directions to the Petitioner and Respondent:
Petitioner's Reply: The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with required documents within three weeks.
Personal Hearing Notice: Upon receiving the reply, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice for the personal hearing.
Effective Service: The notice for the personal hearing must be fixed and served effectively.
Final Order: The respondent shall pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr. T.N.C. Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the “View Additional Notice and Orders” column in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner has already paid more than 30% of the disputed tax amount, to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.
8. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 of the GST Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
9. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.
10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already paid more than 30% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 01.07.2024 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 01.07.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration.
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
11. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.