2025 (6) TMI 1563 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of naural justice - service of SCN - impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without providing any opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner - petitioner is willing to pay 25% 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. 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. The impugned order dated 14.08.2024 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration on condition that the petitioner shall pay 25% 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 allowed by way of remand.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

(a) Whether service of notices and communications exclusively by uploading them on the GST common portal constitutes effective and valid service under the GST Act;

(b) Whether the failure to provide a personal hearing or alternative modes of notice service violates principles of natural justice and statutory requirements;

(c) The adequacy and sufficiency of the respondent's efforts in serving notices when the petitioner did not respond to portal notifications;

(d) The appropriate remedy where impugned orders are passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing and without effective service of notices;

(e) The permissibility and conditions under which a matter may be remanded for fresh consideration subject to partial payment of disputed tax amount by the petitioner.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) & (b): Validity of Service of Notices by Uploading on GST Portal and Requirement of Personal Hearing

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The GST Act, specifically Section 169(1), prescribes modes of serving notices and communications to taxpayers, which include electronic modes but also other prescribed methods such as delivery by registered post with acknowledgment due (RPAD). Principles of natural justice mandate that a party must be given a fair opportunity to be heard before adverse orders are passed.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that uploading notices on the GST common portal is a valid mode of service under the Act. However, it emphasized that mere uploading without ensuring actual knowledge or receipt by the taxpayer does not amount to effective service. The Court reasoned that when the taxpayer fails to respond to such notices, the officer must apply mind to alternative modes of service as prescribed under Section 169(1), such as RPAD, to ensure effective communication.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner asserted unawareness of the notices uploaded on the portal and non-receipt of original show cause notices. The respondent admitted that no personal hearing was granted prior to passing the impugned order. The record showed repeated reminders on the portal but no response from the petitioner.

Application of law to facts: The Court found that the impugned assessment order was passed ex parte without affording the petitioner a personal hearing and without ensuring effective service beyond portal upload. The Court held that the officer's failure to explore alternative service modes rendered the service ineffective and the order premature.

Treatment of competing arguments: While the respondent contended that portal uploading sufficed, the Court rejected this as a sole mode when no response was received, underscoring the need to fulfill the object of the GST Act through effective service rather than mere formal compliance.

Conclusions: Service solely by portal upload without further efforts in the absence of response is insufficient. Personal hearing is an essential opportunity before passing adverse orders. The impugned order was thus passed without observing principles of natural justice and statutory mandates.

Issue (c): Adequacy of Respondent's Efforts in Serving Notices

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 169(1) of the GST Act lists modes of service, including electronic means and RPAD. The officer's duty is to ensure effective service, not merely formal compliance.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that the officer should have exercised discretion and explored alternative modes of service when the petitioner did not respond to portal notices. The failure to do so rendered the service ineffective and the impugned order vulnerable.

Key evidence and findings: The respondent did not issue notices by RPAD or other modes despite non-response from the petitioner.

Application of law to facts: The Court found a lack of due diligence in ensuring effective service, which is critical for fair adjudication under the GST regime.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's admission of no personal hearing and reliance on portal upload alone was insufficient to justify the impugned order.

Conclusions: Officers must actively ensure the taxpayer receives notices by exploring all prescribed modes, failing which service is ineffective.

Issue (d): Remedy for Passing Order Without Personal Hearing and Effective Service

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principles of natural justice and statutory provisions require opportunity of hearing before passing adverse orders. Courts have the power to set aside such orders and remit the matter for fresh consideration.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court found the impugned order to be ex parte and violative of natural justice. It exercised its power to set aside the order and remand the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner was willing to cooperate and pay a portion of the disputed tax amount, indicating bona fide intentions.

Application of law to facts: The Court conditioned the remand on payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner, balancing the interests of revenue and taxpayer's right to be heard.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent agreed to remit the matter subject to payment, demonstrating concurrence in the remedy.

Conclusions: Setting aside the impugned order and remanding for fresh consideration with conditions was appropriate to ensure justice and compliance with statutory requirements.

Issue (e): Conditions for Remand and Partial Payment of Disputed Tax

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Courts may impose conditions such as partial payment of disputed amounts to balance revenue protection and taxpayer's rights during remand.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the petitioner's willingness to pay 25% of the disputed tax amount as a condition precedent to remand, ensuring seriousness and good faith.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's offer to pay 25% was undisputed and formed the basis for the Court's conditional order.

Application of law to facts: The Court ordered payment within four weeks, followed by filing of objections and personal hearing, ensuring procedural fairness and expeditious disposal.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's concurrence with this condition facilitated the Court's order.

Conclusions: Conditional remand with partial payment and opportunity for hearing is a balanced remedy in such cases.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"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."

The Court concluded that the impugned order passed without personal hearing and effective service was liable to be set aside and remanded for fresh consideration on condition of payment of 25% of the disputed tax amount by the petitioner. The petitioner was to be afforded opportunity to file objections and be heard personally before a fresh order is passed.