2025 (6) TMI 741 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - all notices/communications were uploaded by the respondent under the View Additional Notices and Orders column in the GST common portal - petitioner was not aware of the said notices - petitioner is willing to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount to the respondent - HELD THAT - 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. 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. The impugned order dated 06.02.2025 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 - Petition disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court include:

• Whether the issuance of notices and communications solely by uploading on the GST common portal constitutes valid and effective service under the GST Act.
• Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity of personal hearing before passing the impugned order, thereby violating principles of natural justice.
• Whether the respondent was obligated to explore alternative modes of service prescribed under Section 169 of the GST Act when the petitioner failed to respond to notices uploaded on the portal.
• Whether the impugned order passed without personal hearing and effective service should be set aside and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.
• The conditions under which the matter may be remanded, including the petitioner's willingness to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Validity and Effectiveness of Service of Notices via GST Portal

The legal framework governing service of notices under the GST Act includes Section 169, which prescribes modes of service such as delivery by hand, registered post, or electronic means including upload on official portals. The Court acknowledged that uploading notices on the GST common portal is a recognized mode of service.

However, the Court emphasized that mere uploading without ensuring the recipient's awareness does not amount to effective service. The Court noted that the petitioner claimed ignorance of the notices uploaded under the "View Additional Notices and Orders" tab, and no physical or alternative communication was furnished. This lack of awareness led to non-filing of replies within prescribed time limits.

The Court reasoned that service by uploading alone, without any follow-up or alternative communication, may amount to an empty formality rather than effective service. It highlighted the importance of actual notice to the taxpayer to enable meaningful participation in the proceedings.

Denial of Opportunity of Personal Hearing and Principles of Natural Justice

The impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner any personal hearing. The Court reiterated the fundamental principle that no order adversely affecting a party should be passed without giving an opportunity to be heard. The absence of personal hearing, especially when the petitioner was unaware of the notices, constituted a violation of natural justice.

The Court found that the impugned order confirmed proposals contained in the show cause notice ex parte, which was improper. It underscored that personal hearing is an essential procedural safeguard to ensure fairness and transparency in tax assessments.

Obligation to Explore Alternative Modes of Service under Section 169 of the GST Act

Section 169(1) of the GST Act allows service of notices by various modes, including registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD). The Court held that when repeated reminders sent via the portal remain unresponded, the tax officer is duty-bound to consider alternative modes of service to ensure effective communication.

The Court reasoned that failure to do so results in ineffective service, rendering subsequent orders vulnerable to challenge. It emphasized that reliance solely on portal uploads without exploring other prescribed modes defeats the object of the GST Act and leads to unnecessary litigation, wasting judicial and administrative resources.

Setting Aside of the Impugned Order and Remand for Fresh Consideration

Given the procedural lapses, the Court found it just and proper to set aside the impugned order dated 06.02.2025. The Court accepted the petitioner's willingness to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a condition for remand.

The Court directed the respondent to provide the petitioner an opportunity to file reply/objections with supporting documents within three weeks of payment. Subsequently, the respondent must issue a clear 14-day notice fixing the date for personal hearing and pass orders on merits after hearing the petitioner.

This approach balances the interests of the revenue and the taxpayer by ensuring procedural fairness while safeguarding revenue realization.

Treatment of Competing Arguments

The respondent contended that uploading on the GST portal was sufficient service and that the petitioner failed to avail the opportunity. The respondent also acknowledged the absence of personal hearing but sought remand subject to payment of 10% of disputed tax.

The Court accepted the respondent's concession regarding absence of personal hearing and agreed that the petition was filed within limitation. However, it rejected the notion that portal upload alone sufficed without exploring other modes of service. The Court's reasoning favored ensuring effective communication and adherence to natural justice over mere procedural compliance.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"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."

The Court established the core principle that effective service is a prerequisite to passing valid orders under the GST Act and must not be reduced to mere formality. It underscored the need for tax authorities to ensure actual receipt of notices through multiple modes if necessary.

On the issue of natural justice, the Court reaffirmed that personal hearing is mandatory before adverse orders are passed, especially where the taxpayer is unaware of the proceedings.

Finally, the Court's directions for remand with conditions form a significant procedural precedent ensuring that taxpayers are given a fair opportunity to contest assessments, subject to partial payment of disputed tax to protect revenue interests.