Tvl.Evershine Industries Vs Assistant Commissioner (Madras High Court)
A writ petition was filed challenging multiple orders issued by the tax authorities. The petitioner’s Goods and Services Tax (GST) registration was voluntarily canceled in 2022. Following this, the tax department uploaded all subsequent notices and communications to the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal. The petitioner stated they were unaware of these notices and, as a result, failed to submit timely replies. This led to the impugned orders being issued without providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. The petitioner offered to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount and requested the court to set aside the orders, allowing them to present their case.
The Special Government Pleader, representing the respondent, acknowledged that notices were uploaded to the online portal and admitted that no personal hearing was provided before the orders were passed. Given that the notices were issued after the GST registration cancellation, the government requested the matter be remitted back to the respondent, subject to the petitioner paying 10% of the disputed tax. The court found that while uploading notices to the portal is generally considered sufficient service, the officer should have explored alternative modes of communication, as outlined in Section 169 of the GST Act, when there was no response. Relying solely on portal uploads without ensuring effective service in such cases was deemed to lead to unnecessary litigation. The court also noted that communications should have been sent to the petitioner’s email ID, especially after the voluntary cancellation of their GST registration.
