Tax authorities must strictly comply with natural justice by providing proper notice and an opportunity for a hearing. Assessment orders passed without such service are invalid, and courts may treat the impugned order as a formal notice to ensure the taxpayer receives a fair opportunity to contest the liability.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

2. Invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner, a proprietorship concern engaged in the business of trading under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and hence seeks to challenge the order dated 22nd August, 2024 passed in appeal by Additional Commissioner Grade II, first appellate authority.

3. Submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that that order of assessing officer fastening the petitioner concerned with a liability of tax upon the sale for the relevant financial year in question alongwith interest and penalty in purported exercise of power under Section 74 of the GST Act, is absolutely ex-parte one as neither alleged show cause notice was ever brought to the knowledge of the petitioner, nor service of the same was physically ever effected upon petitioner. Petitioner got knowledge of the proceedings conducted its back when the order came to be uploaded on the dash board with the tab "view additional notices and orders". Thus, it is argued that petitioner having failed to notice, the notice GST DRC-01, it could not make any reply at all.

4. It is also claimed that the order dated 6th October, 2021 was also not communicated on e-mail to the petitioner. It is further pleaded that no sooner did petitioner come to know the order of assessing officer in March, 2024, petitioner immediately preferred statutory appeal before first appellate authority, however, same has been rejected on the ground of it being barred by time. Thus, two fold submissions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner:

i. In the absence of service of notice/the show cause notice, petitioner was denied opportunity to put up its defence so as to justify no liability of tax qua business of trading and sale under the GST.

ii. Remedy of appeal having been denied on the ground of delay that was for want of knowledge, petitioner has been rendered remediless.

5. It is also argued by Sri Shubham Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the party which was passing the order by Assessing Authority and only application NA (not applicable) was recorded. It is submitted that non compliance of the show cause notice could have only led to the closure of opportunity to submit reply but yet the show cause notice was not there available but by way of additional notice.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that controversy qua issue of show cause notice not being effected upon for it being not available upon tab 'view notices and orders' at the GST Portal and then rendering the party defenseless in the matter of liability of tax under the GST Act is no more res integra. It is submitted that division bench of this Court in the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.07.2024) has dealt with this aspect of the matter and it has been held that no material existed to reject the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that order impugned imposing liability of tax was not reflecting under tab 'view notices and orders' and so there remained a valid dispute as to non consideration/consideration of the various documents of returns available which could have been shown in reply to the show cause notice.

7. The division bench was of the view that party under liability of tax in an ex parte order need