Calyx Coronation Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The writ petition was filed to challenge an order dated 01.07.2024 issued by the State Tax Officer. During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel accepted notice, and both sides agreed to have the petition disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner argued that all notices and communications were uploaded only under the “View Additional Notice and Orders” section of the GST common portal. Since they were unaware of these uploads, they did not file a reply within the prescribed time. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed without any opportunity of personal hearing and therefore sought interference from the Court. It was also submitted that more than 30% of the disputed tax had already been paid, and the petitioner requested an opportunity to present their case before the authority by setting aside the order.
The respondent acknowledged that notices had been uploaded on the GST portal but admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing had been given before the order was passed. The respondent’s counsel requested that the matter be remitted for reconsideration, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax, which the petitioner agreed to.
After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Court noted that the show cause notice had been uploaded on the GST portal but that the petitioner claimed unawareness of the notice and had not received its physical copy. The Court found that the assessment order had been passed without affording a personal hearing, even though it confirmed the proposals in the show cause notice. While acknowledging that uploading notices on the portal constitutes valid service, the Court emphasized that officers issuing repeated reminders without receiving a response must apply their mind and consider alternative modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act. The Court observed that relying solely on portal uploads, especially when there is no response, reduces service to a mere formality and results in ex parte orders that contribute to unnecessary litigation, causing avoidable burden to tax authorities, appellate bodies, and the Court.
