While service of notice via an online portal is legally sufficient, if a taxpayer fails to respond, the officer should utilize other modes prescribed under Section 282 of the IT Act (e.g., RPAD) to ensure effective service and uphold the principles of natural justice.

Common Prayer:

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records in DIN ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1072581199(1)dated 27.01.2025 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act on the file of the 1st Respondent relating to the A.Y 2020-21 and quash the same.

calling for the records in DIN ITBA/PNL/F/270A/2025-26/1078182416(1) dated 04.07.2025 on the file of the 1st Respondent relating to the A.Y 2020-21 and quash the same.

COMMON ORDER

These writ petitions have been filed challenging the impugned assessment order dated 27.01.2025 and the consequential proceedings dated 04.07.2025 passed by the respondents.

2. Mr.N.Dilipkumar, learned counsel takes notice on behalf of the respondents.

3. By consent of the parties, the main writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in these cases, the assessment was made for the AY 2020-2021. Due to the covid pandemic situation, the petitioner, being a milk vendor, was unable to file his IT returns. Hence, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. However, all the notices and communications were uploaded by the respondent in the portal, due to which, the petitioner remained unnoticed about the said proceedings and thus, he was not in position to file any reply. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity to the petitioner, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.

5. Further, he would submit that now, the petitioner is willing to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the respondent and hence, he requests this Court to set aside the impugned order and grant one more opportunity to file reply to the show cause notice.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the 1st respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, he has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. Therefore, he requested this Court to remit the matters back to the respondent, subject to terms.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and and the learned counsel for the respondents and also perused the materials available on record.

8. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the IT Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the IT Portal and the original of the said show cause notice was not furnished to them. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that the impugned assessment order came to be passed without affording any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner, confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice.

9. No doubt, sending notice by uploading in portal is a sufficient service, but, the Officer who is sending the repeated reminders, inspite of the fact that no response from the petitioner to the show cause notices etc., the Officer should have applied his/her mind and explored the possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 282 of the IT Act, which are also the valid mode of service under the Act, otherwise it will not be an effective service, rather, it would only fulfilling the empty formalities. Merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling the empty formalities will not serve any useful purpose and the same