Shiv Traders Vs State of U.P. And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
Introduction
In a significant ruling protecting the principles of natural justice, the Allahabad High Court has clarified that the Revenue department cannot rely solely on the automated uploading of hearing dates on the GST portal to claim “valid service” of notice. The Court emphasized that for a notice to be legally binding, there must be evidence of effective communication to the taxpayer, especially when the taxpayer denies receiving such intimation.
Background and Facts of the Case
The dispute originated from a transit interception involving the transport of goods from Uttar Pradesh to West Bengal.
- Interception & Detention: On October 27, 2024, the petitioner’s consignment was intercepted despite carrying a valid invoice and e-way bill.
- No Discrepancies Found: Physical verification confirmed that the quantity and description of the goods matched the invoice perfectly.
- Penalty Order: Despite the lack of discrepancies, authorities issued a show-cause notice (MOV-07) and subsequently passed an order under Section 129(3) (MOV-09), demanding a penalty.
- The Appeal: The petitioner challenged this detention before the Appellate Authority. However, on September 10, 2025, the appeal was dismissed ex parte (without the petitioner being present).
The Core Dispute
The Revenue Department argued that the petitioner deliberately avoided the proceedings despite multiple hearing dates being uploaded on the GST portal.
Conversely, the petitioner contended that:
1. No actual notice of the hearing was ever served via email or physical means.
2. The “Notice” section of the portal was not updated with a formal hearing intimation.
3. An ex parte dismissal based on “digital presence” alone violates the Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem—the right to be heard).
Key Legal Issues
1. Does the act of merely uploading a date on the GST portal satisfy the legal requirement of “Service of Notice”?
2. Is an ex parte appellate order sustainable if the taxpayer denies receipt of electronic communication?
Judgment and Observations
The Hon’ble High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, setting aside the appellate order. The Court’s decision was grounded in the following observations:
