Sekar Stores Vs Deputy State Tax Officer
Date: August 7, 2025
Subject Matter
Service of Notice: Officers must explore other modes of service (preferably RPAD) u/s 169 especially when the taxpayer's registration has been canceled
Summary
The petitioner challenged an ex parte assessment order dated February 4, 2025, arguing a violation of natural justice. The petitioner's GST registration was voluntarily canceled on April 11, 2022. Subsequent show cause notices and communications were only uploaded to the GST common portal. The petitioner claimed unawareness of these notices, which led to their failure to file a reply and the passing of the impugned order without a personal hearing.
The respondent's counsel admitted that while notices were uploaded to the portal, no personal hearing was provided. They also conceded that notices were issued after the cancellation of the GST registration. Both parties requested that the matter be remanded for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner making the statutory pre-deposit.
The court stressed that while service via the portal is legally sufficient, an officer, upon receiving no response, must explore other modes of service (preferably RPAD) prescribed in Section 169(1) of the GST Act, especially when the taxpayer's registration has been canceled. The court held that merely passing an ex parte order by fulfilling empty formalities leads to multiplicity of litigation and is not an effective service.
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated February 4, 2025. The matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration, subject to the following conditions:
Pre-Deposit: The petitioner must pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent within four weeks. The setting aside of the order takes effect only upon this payment.
Reply and Hearing: The petitioner must file a reply/objection along with documents within three weeks of the payment.
Fresh Adjudication: The respondent is directed to issue a 14-day clear notice for a personal hearing and then pass a fresh order on the merits, in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the respondent.
2. Mrs. K.Vasanthamala, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the respondent. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in this case, based on the voluntary request made by the petitioner, their GST Registration was cancelled on 11.04.2022. Subsequent to the said cancellation, all notices/communications were uploaded in the GST common portal. Since the petitioner was not aware of the said notices, they failed to file their reply within the time. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed.
4. Further, he would submit that the petitioner is willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. Hence, he requests this Court to grant an opportunity to the petitioner to present their case before the respondent by setting aside the impugned order.
5. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would submit that the respondent had uploaded the notices in the GST Online Portal. But the petitioner failed to avail the said opportunity. Further, she has fairly admitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was provided to the petitioner prior to the passing of impugned order. That apart, since the notices were issued subsequent to the cancellation of GST Registration of the petitioner, she requested this Court to remit the matter back to the respondent, subject to the payment of 10% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
7. In the case on hand, it is evident that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. According to the petitioner, he was not aware of the issuance of the said show cause notice issued through the GST 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.
8. 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 169 of the GST 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 will only pave way for multiplicity of litigations, not only wasting the time of the Officer concerned, but also the precious time of the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and this Court as well.
9. Thus, when there is no response from the tax payer to the notice sent through a particular mode, the Officer who is issuing notices should strictly explore the possibilities of sending notices through some other mode as prescribed in Section 169(1) of the Act, preferably by way of RPAD, which would ultimately achieve the object of the GST Act. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner.
10. Further, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has voluntarily cancelled their GST Registration. When such being the case, all the communications should have been sent to the e-mail id provided by the petitioner. However, the respondent had failed to do so. Under these circumstances, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing, which is a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
11. That apart, now, the petitioner is willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2025 passed by the respondent. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order:-
(i) The impugned order dated 04.02.2025 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 10% of disputed tax amount to the respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The setting aside of
(ii) The petitioner shall file their reply/objection along with the required documents, if any, within a period of three weeks from the date of payment of amount as stated above.
(iii) On filing of such reply/objection by the petitioner, the respondent shall consider the same and issue a 14 days clear notice, by fixing the date of personal hearing, to the petitioner and thereafter, pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.