9911796707🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (6) TMI 1244 - HC - GSTChallenge to order passed by the respondent for the AY 2019-20 and to quash the same - seeking consequential direction to the respondent to drop all proceedings initiated thereunder - non-service of SCN - petitioner was not aware of the show cause notice and failed to submit its reply - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab and as the GST number of the petitioner was suspended he could not login to the GST portal. According to the petitioner the petitioner was not aware of the issuance of the 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. 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. This Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc. effectively to the petitioner. Hence this Court is inclined to set-aside the impugned order with conditions imposed - the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. Petition disposed off by way of remand.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of the impugned order passed without affording opportunity of hearing and effective service of show cause notice The legal framework governing service of notices under GST is primarily found in Section 169 of the GST Act, which prescribes modes of service including electronic means, physical delivery, and registered post. The principle of natural justice mandates that a party must be given an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed. Precedents emphasize that mere formal compliance with service requirements, if ineffective in bringing the notice to the recipient's knowledge, violates natural justice. The Court noted that the show cause notice was issued by uploading it on the GST portal on 15.05.2024. However, the petitioner's GST registration was suspended, disabling access to the portal and thereby preventing knowledge of the notice. The petitioner consequently failed to file a reply, leading to confirmation of the proposals ex parte. The Court found that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner any opportunity of personal hearing, thus violating principles of natural justice. The Court held that while uploading notice on the portal is a valid mode of service, it is insufficient if the petitioner is unable to access the portal due to suspension of GST registration. The respondent authority failed to explore alternative modes of service as prescribed under Section 169, such as sending notices by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), which could have ensured effective communication. The Court reasoned that the Officer's failure to adopt alternative service methods rendered the service ineffective and amounted to mere fulfillment of empty formalities. This approach would only lead to multiplicity of litigation and wastage of judicial and administrative resources. Issue 2: Obligation of the respondent to explore alternative modes of service under Section 169 of the GST Act The Court interpreted Section 169(1) of the GST Act as prescribing multiple modes of service, including electronic and physical means. When service by one mode fails to elicit response, the Officer is duty-bound to consider other modes to ensure effective service. The Court emphasized that strict adherence to this obligation is necessary to achieve the object of the GST Act and to uphold fairness in proceedings. In the present case, despite repeated reminders and no response from the petitioner, the respondent did not attempt alternative modes of service. The Court held that this was a procedural lapse that vitiated the impugned order. Issue 3: Opportunity of personal hearing before confirming proposals in the show cause notice The Court underscored the fundamental requirement of affording a personal hearing before passing an adverse order confirming the proposals contained in the show cause notice. The absence of such opportunity in the present case was a critical procedural infirmity. The Court directed that upon remand, the respondent must issue a clear 14-day notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner before deciding the matter on merits. Issue 4: Consideration of petitioner's offer to deposit 25% of disputed tax The petitioner voluntarily offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax as a condition for remand and lifting of bank attachment. The respondent did not oppose this proposal. The Court accepted this offer as a reasonable condition to balance the interests of revenue and the petitioner's right to be heard. The Court directed that the petitioner shall deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks from receipt of the order, following which the petitioner shall file a reply with supporting documents within two weeks. The respondent shall then proceed with fresh consideration. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held:
The Court established the core principle that effective service of notices is indispensable to uphold natural justice and that reliance on a single mode of service, when ineffective, is insufficient. It emphasized the duty of the tax authority to explore alternative modes of service under the statute to ensure the taxpayer is duly informed and heard. Final determinations:
|
