Case Law Details
Praveen Constructions Vs State Tax Officer (Madras High Court)
The Madras High Court considered writ petitions challenging six assessment orders dated 6 January 2025, 28 January 2025, and 30 January 2025 passed by the State Tax Officer. The petitioner contended that all communications and show cause notices had been uploaded by the respondent on the GST common portal. According to the petitioner, they were not aware of the uploaded notices and therefore failed to submit replies within the prescribed time. As a result, the impugned orders were passed without providing any opportunity for personal hearing.
The petitioner submitted that the original show cause notices were not furnished to them and that they became aware of the proceedings only after the orders were passed. It was argued that the orders had been issued without granting a personal hearing and therefore deserved to be set aside. The petitioner further expressed willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount in each case and requested that the matters be remanded to the respondent to allow them to present their case.
The respondent submitted that the notices had been uploaded on the GST portal and the petitioner had failed to respond despite the opportunity provided. However, the respondent fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing had been granted to the petitioner prior to passing the impugned orders. The respondent therefore requested that the matters may be remitted back to the authority, subject to the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount.
After hearing the parties and examining the materials on record, the Court observed that the show cause notices had indeed been uploaded on the GST portal. The petitioner claimed that they were unaware of the notices and had not received the original copies. The Court noted that the assessment orders had been passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing and that the proposals contained in the show cause notices had been confirmed through the impugned orders.
The Court acknowledged that service of notice through uploading on the GST portal is a valid mode of service. However, the Court observed that when repeated reminders sent through the portal do not receive any response from the taxpayer, the officer issuing the notice should apply their mind and explore alternative modes of service available under Section 169 of the GST Act. The Court emphasized that merely uploading notices on the portal and proceeding to pass ex parte orders without ensuring effective service amounts to fulfilling empty formalities. Such an approach does not achieve the purpose of the GST law and may result in unnecessary litigation.
The Court further stated that when a taxpayer does not respond to notices sent through a particular mode, the officer should consider sending notices through other prescribed methods, preferably by registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD), which would help ensure effective communication. The Court noted that failure to explore other modes of service in such circumstances results in lack of effective opportunity being provided to the taxpayer.
Considering these factors, and taking into account the petitioner’s willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, the Court decided to set aside the six impugned orders. The matters were remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration subject to certain conditions.
The Court directed that the impugned orders dated 6 January 2025, 28 January 2025, and 30 January 2025 be set aside and the matters remanded to the respondent. This setting aside would take effect upon the petitioner paying 25% of the disputed tax amount in each case within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
The Court further directed that the petitioner should submit their reply or objections along with relevant documents within three weeks from the date of payment of the required amount. After receiving the reply, the respondent must consider the same and issue a clear notice of 14 days to the petitioner specifying the date of personal hearing. Thereafter, the respondent is required to pass fresh orders on merits and in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner.
With these directions, the writ petitions were disposed of. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed and no order as to costs was passed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
These writ petitions have been filed challenging the 6 impugned orders dated 06.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 28.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 30.01.2025 & 30.01.2025 passed by the respondent.
2. Mr. R. Suresh Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondent.
3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent 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 orders came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, this petition has been filed.
5. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, in each case, 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 orders.
6. 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 orders. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matters back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount as agreed by the petitioner.
7. 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.
8. In the cases 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that now, the petitioner is willing to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, in each case, to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside all the 6 impugned orders dated 06.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 28.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 30.01.2025 & 30.01.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned orders dated 06.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 28.01.2025, 30.01.2025, 30.01.2025 & 30.01.2025 are set aside and the matters are remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% of the disputed tax amount, in each case, to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of the impugned order will take effect from the date of payment of the said amount.
(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 payment of amount as stated above.
(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.
12. With the above directions, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
Author Bio
