IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
Tvl. Viswanathan Amarnath, Proprietor of M/s.Shanvi Enterprises - Appellant
Versus
The Deputy State Tax Officer (ST) - Respondent
W.P.No.3617 of 2025 and W.M.P.Nos.4008 & 4009 of 2025
Decided on : 06-02-2025
ORDER :
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the respondent in order dated 28.08.2024 in GSTN 33AESPA5807M2Z9/2019-20 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the present case, the respondent uploaded DRC-01, reminders and the impugned order dated 28.08.2024 in “View Additional Notices” and Orders” column on GST Portal, whereby the time limit was provided for filing reply on or before 25.06.2024 and the personal hearing was fixed on 26.06.2024. Since the said notices and reminders were uploaded under the column, viz., "View Additional Notices and Orders", in the GST portal, the petitioner had no occasion to view the same. Under these circumstances, ex parte impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, which clearly amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
3.Further, he would submit that in the present case, the respondent has erroneously reversed the ITC of Rs.31,437/- on the ground that the suppliers have filed GSTR 3B return with NIL turnover and failed to pay tax on the invoices declared in GSTR 1 for the relevant period. The learned counsel would submit that the supplier has duly filed GSTR 1 return declaring its tax liability correctly and that they have filed GSTR 3B return duly remitting its tax liability and hence, the reversal of ITC on the said ground is unjustified.
4.Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that in the present case, the respondent has issued show cause notice and also provided an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. The details with regard to the same was mentioned in the show cause notice. However, the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunities, which were provided by the respondent. Therefore, he would contend that it is not that no show cause notice was issued and no personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
6.In the case on hand, the show cause notice was issued on 25.05.2024. Admittedly, the said notice was uploaded under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column and the part-time accountant who was engaged by the petitioner for filing returns, did not cross-check the 'view additional notices and orders' column and thereby, reply could not be filed in time and it is neither willful nor wanton.
7.Normally, while issuing a notice to an assessee, the relevant authority must not only send the notice but also ensure that it is properly "reached and served" on the assessee, meaning the onus is on the authority to verify that the notice has been delivered and received by the intended recipient; this aligns with the principles of natural justice and proper legal procedure.
8.In the present case, according to the petitioner, show cause notice was issued by uploading the same under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” column due to which, the same was not taken note of and could not file the reply in time. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that there are multiple modes of serving of notices/summons/order/decision or any other communication prescribed under Section 169 of the Act, which reads as under:
“Section 169. Service of notice in certain circumstances.-
(1) Any decision, order, summons, notice or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely:-
(a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorised represe
The court emphasized the necessity of effective notice service to uphold natural justice, ruling that failure to provide a fair opportunity to respond invalidates the impugned order.
The court held that failure to provide a personal hearing and ineffective notice service necessitates setting aside the assessment order.
The court highlighted the importance of providing effective notice and opportunity for a personal hearing in compliance with procedural fairness requirements.
The court emphasizes the need for fair hearing and the proper service of notices under the GST Act to avoid unjust ex parte orders.
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.
Procedural fairness requires effective notice and personal hearing opportunities, especially in tax assessments, to avoid ex parte orders.
Due process in tax assessment requires adequate opportunity for response to notices; failure to afford it necessitates judicial remand for reconsideration.
Effective service of notice under the GST Act is critical, with failure to serve properly resulting in quashing of demand and recognition of violation of natural justice principles.
The failure to provide valid notice and opportunity to be heard constitutes a violation of natural justice, necessitating quashing of ex parte orders under the GST Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.