HC Sets Aside GST Order: Notice Not Physically Served, Violation of Natural Justice

Jak Communications Private Limited Vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer (Madras High Court)

Introduction: The Madras High Court recently delivered a significant judgment in the case of Jak Communications Private Limited vs Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, challenging an order dated 25.05.2023. The crux of the matter revolves around the non-physical service of GST notices, leading to a violation of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis: The petitioner’s counsel argued that crucial notices dated 12.2021, 24.03.2023, and 15.05.2023 were uploaded on the GST portal but were not physically served to the petitioner. This, according to the petitioner, resulted in unawareness and a denial of the opportunity for filing a reply or attending a personal hearing.

In response, the respondent contended that despite the notices being available on the web portal, the petitioner failed to appear for a personal hearing. However, acknowledging the court’s authority, the respondent expressed willingness to comply with any order issued by the court.

Upon careful consideration, the court noted that the petitioner’s claims of being unaware due to non-physical service seemed genuine. Emphasizing the importance of providing sufficient opportunities, the court found a lack of filing a reply by the petitioner and the absence of a personal hearing opportunity. Consequently, the court concluded that the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 was in violation of natural justice.

Setting aside the order, the court remitted the matter back to the respondents. The petitioner was directed to file a reply to the show cause notice dated 24.03.2023 within 21 days. The respondent was further instructed to dispose of the matter, ensuring ample opportunities for the petitioner.

Conclusion: In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s decision highlights the significance of adherence to principles of natural justice in GST proceedings. The court’s intervention serves as a safeguard against procedural lapses, emphasizing the need for fair hearings and opportunities for parties involved. This judgment underscores the crucial balance between administrative efficiency and ensuring justice in the realm of taxation matters.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 25.05.2023 passed by the 1^st respondent.

2. Ms. E. Ranganayaki, learned Additional Government Pleader, takes notice on behalf of the respondents. 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 prior to the passing of the impugned order dated 25.05.2023, all the notices dated 12.2021, 24.03.2023 and 15.05.2023 were uploaded by the respondent in their web portal in the “View Additional Notices and Order” column and the same were not served physically to the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner was unaware of the said notice. Therefore, he would contend that the said impugned order was passed in the violation of principles of natural justice since prior to the passing of the impugned order, neither opportunity for filing the reply nor the opportunity of personal hearing was provided by the respondent to the petitioner.

4. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the notice was uploaded by the respondent in the web portal, the petitioner had failed to appear before the respondent for personal hearing. However, she would fairly submit that if any order is passed by this Court, the same will be complied with by the respondent.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.

6. In the present case, it appears that the notices dated 24.12.2021, 03.2023 and 15.05.2023 and the assessment order dated 25.05.2023 have been uploaded in the web portal in the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column and the same were not at all physically served to the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner was unaware about the said notice. Hence, the reasons provided by the petitioner for being unaware of the notice, which was uploaded in the web portal, are appears to be genuine.

7. Further, this Court is of the view that no order can be passed without providing sufficient opportunities to the However, in the present case, no reply was filed by the petitioner and no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.2023 is set aside. While setting aside the impugned order, this Court remits the matter back to the respondents. The petitioner is directed to file the reply to the show cause notice dated 24.03.2023 within a period of 21 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Thereafter, the respondent is directed to dispose of the matter after providing sufficient opportunities to the petitioner.

9. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed No cost. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.