The court held that service of notices via an online portal under an unusual column is insufficient, violating principles of natural justice, leading to the annulment of the ex parte order.

ORDER :

Krishnan Ramasamy, J.

Heard Mr.R.Ganesh Kanna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms..Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran learned Government Advocate (T) who takes notice on behalf of the respondent. With consent, the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

2. The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order of assessment passed by the respondent in DRC-07 dated 24.08.2024 and to quash the same and further, to direct the respondent to lift the bank attachment notice issued in Form DRC-13 dated 05.02.2025 on the petitioner's banker.

3. Mr.R.Ganesh Kanna, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the respondent issued a show cause notice in Form DRC-01 dated 22.05.2024, which has been uploaded in the GST Portal under the Column ''View Additional Notices/Orders'' instead of usual column ''View Notices/Orders'', and hence, the said notice was unnoticed by the petitioner; that thereafter, the respondent also sent reminders dated 26.06.2024, 19.07.2024 and 19.08.2024, and since the same have also been uploaded in the GST Portal under the said different Column, those notices have also been unnoticed by the petitioner, however, the respondent passed the impugned order by stating that the petitioner failed to file reply nor appeared before the respondent for the personal hearing, hence, the proposals contained in the show cause notice are confirmed.

3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reasons for non responsive to the show cause notice and reminders is purely owing to the fact that the petitioner has no knowledge of the same, as they were uploaded in the GST Portal under the unusual column, i.e. 'View Additional Notice/Orders', and only when the petitioner received an intimation as regards the attachment of their bank account, the petitioner immediately verified the online portal, and found that all notices/communications, which culminated in the impugned order have been merely uploaded in the GST Portal.

3.2 The bone of contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is an illiterate person and is not well accustomed with operation of the computer system so as to view On-line services through GST Portal independently without anyone's help. Therefore, the petitioner could neither file reply nor appear before the respondent for the personal hearing, however, the respondent, without even hearing the petitioner, passed the impugned order and also proceeded to initiate recovery proceedings by attaching their bank account.

3.3 Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order by mainly contending that the impugned order is nothing but an ex parte order, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the the same and insofar as the notices/communications, which have been merely uploaded to the GST Dashboard under ''View Additional Notices and Orders'' tabs in the GST Portal are concerned, the same can no longer be deemed to be a sufficient service.

3.4 The learned counsel further submitted that when the petitioner failed to respond to any of the notices sent by the respondent through on- line portal, the respondent ought to have chosen to send notice through physical mode of service and in support of such contention, the learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Section 169 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act , which prescribes any other modes of service, particularly (b) of the said Act, prescribes mode of service by RPAD and the respondent, instead of changing the mode of service, has been mechanically issuing notice after notice, which would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, it is contended that unless and until the petitioner has received notice in person by RPAD, the service effected by the respondent cannot be deemed to be a sufficient service.

3.5 It is the further grievance of the petitioner that had any of the notices, which culminated in t