2025 (7) TMI 1605 - HC - GST

Electronic Service of Notice - Non-compliance with Rule 142 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Rules 2017 - Order vitiated by gross procedural irregularity - impugned order has been passed ex-parte without affording any reasonable opportunity of being heard - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - While it is true that this Court in a catena of decisions has upheld the validity of electronic service of notices under the GST regime in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case particularly having regard to the nature of the business the substantive rights involved and in the interest of fairness this Court is of the considered view that ends of justice would be better served if the petitioner is afforded an effective opportunity to participate in the proceedings before the Assessing Authority. The matter stands remitted to the stage of issuance of notice under Section 73 of the CGST/SGST Act. The petitioner shall appear before the respondent-Authority on the date now fixed i.e. 15.07.2025 and participate in the proceedings - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

The Karnataka High Court, in Writ Petition No. 13437 of 2025, quashed the impugned order dated 20-12-2023 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, on grounds of "gross procedural irregularity" and violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically non-compliance with Rule 142 of the CGST Rules, 2017. The Court held that the order was passed ex-parte without affording the petitioner, a registered fireworks dealer, a reasonable opportunity of being heard, thereby breaching the audi alteram partem rule. Although electronic service of notices under the GST regime is generally upheld, the Court found that in the present case, relying solely on electronic communication via the GST portal was insufficient given the substantive rights involved and the nature of the business. Consequently, the Court remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication after issuing proper notice under Section 73 and providing the petitioner an effective opportunity to participate. The petitioner was directed to appear on 15.07.2025 and to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the Registrar General within two weeks. The Court emphasized that the writ petition was maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies, as the impugned order lacked due process.