Tvl. Sri Samy Agencies Vs Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court considered a writ petition challenging an assessment order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the second respondent. By consent of the parties, the matter was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. The petitioner contended that all notices and communications were uploaded only on the GST common portal and that they were unaware of such notices. As a result, no reply was filed within the stipulated time, and the impugned order was passed without granting an opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner further submitted that the original show cause notice was not furnished and expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount if an opportunity to present their case was granted.
The respondents submitted that notices were uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner failed to respond. However, it was fairly admitted that no personal hearing was afforded prior to passing the impugned order. The respondents agreed that the matter could be remanded, subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount.
Upon examining the record, the Court noted that while service of notice through the GST portal is a valid mode, the absence of any response from the taxpayer required the officer to explore other prescribed modes of service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act. The Court observed that merely uploading notices and passing ex parte orders without ensuring effective service amounted to empty formalities and would only lead to unnecessary litigation. The Court emphasized that officers should apply their mind and adopt alternative modes of service, preferably by registered post with acknowledgment due, to effectively achieve the object of the GST Act.
