TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Validity of the impugned assessment order passed ex parte and violation of principles of natural justice
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017 governs the determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized. The principles of natural justice require that before passing an adverse order, the affected party must be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. Precedents emphasize that ex parte orders without notice or hearing violate these principles and are liable to be set aside.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the impugned order was passed without hearing the petitioner, constituting an ex parte order. The petitioner was not aware of the notices and communications that culminated in the assessment order because these were not uploaded under the usual column but under a different column on the GST Portal. This lack of proper notice deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to present their case, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's erstwhile Chartered Accountant was unaware of the notices due to their unconventional placement on the portal. Only after a new Chartered Accountant reviewed the portal was the petitioner informed of the notices and orders issued. The petitioner promptly instructed the filing of an appeal, which was rejected on grounds of delay.
Application of law to facts: Since the petitioner was not properly notified, the ex parte order is legally unsustainable. The Court found that the procedural lapse in service of notice vitiates the assessment order.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent did not dispute the procedural facts but relied on the portal's online communication as sufficient notice. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that mere uploading under a non-standard column does not constitute adequate notice.
Conclusion: The impugned assessment order is set aside due to violation of natural justice.
Issue 2: Adequacy and validity of notice through GST Portal under "View Additional Notices and Orders"
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Proper service of notice is a prerequisite for valid adjudication. The GST law provides for electronic communication of notices, but it must be reasonably accessible and apparent to the taxpayer.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the notices were uploaded under a different column than the usual one, which was not brought to the petitioner's attention or known to the erstwhile Chartered Accountant. This procedural irregularity resulted in the petitioner being unaware of the proceedings.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's ignorance of the notices was attributed to their placement under "View Additional Notices and Orders," a column not customarily checked by the petitioner or their representative.
Application of law to facts: The Court held that the mode of communication failed the test of reasonable notice and transparency, thereby invalidating the service of notices.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent's reliance on electronic communication was found insufficient when the notices are not properly highlighted or uploaded under the standard column.
Conclusion: The communication of notices was inadequate and did not comply with principles of fair notice.
Issue 3: Delay in filing appeal and condonation of delay
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Appeals under GST law are subject to strict limitation periods, with provisions for condonation of delay under certain circumstances, including sufficient cause such as medical reasons.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner filed the appeal belatedly due to lack of awareness of notices and medical reasons. The Deputy Commissioner rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. The Court considered the petitioner's explanation and the circumstances leading to the delay.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's new Chartered Accountant discovered the notices belatedly, and the petitioner had medical difficulties impeding timely filing.
Application of law to facts: While the Court did not explicitly condone the delay, it recognized the procedural irregularity in notice and the petitioner's willingness to comply, which justified setting aside the order and remanding for fresh consideration.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent insisted on strict adherence to limitation; however, the Court prioritized fair hearing and justice over procedural technicalities.
Conclusion: The delay in filing appeal is excused in view of the procedural lapses and medical reasons, warranting fresh adjudication.
Issue 4: Appropriate relief and directions considering petitioner's willingness to deposit part of disputed tax
Relevant legal framework and precedents: Courts have discretion to grant interim relief and conditions in tax disputes, including directing partial deposit of disputed tax to balance interests of revenue and taxpayer.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The petitioner expressed willingness to deposit 15% of the disputed tax. The respondent acknowledged the petitioner had already deposited 10%. The Court considered this voluntary compliance as a positive factor.
Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's readiness to deposit 15% of disputed tax was taken into account to facilitate fresh adjudication.
Application of law to facts: The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter with directions that the petitioner deposit 15% of disputed tax within two weeks, file reply and documents, and be afforded a personal hearing before a fresh decision is taken.
Treatment of competing arguments: The respondent did not oppose the deposit proposal, and the Court balanced procedural fairness with protection of revenue.
Conclusion: The Court ordered setting aside the assessment order, remand for fresh consideration, and mandated partial deposit and opportunity of hearing for the petitioner.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS
The Court's crucial legal reasoning includes the following verbatim excerpts:
"Admittedly, there is no dispute on the aspect that the impugned Assessment Order passed by the respondent dated 26.04.2023 is an ex parte order, as the petitioner has not been heard before passing the same."
"All the notices/communications... have been merely uploaded in the GST Portal through on-line service that too, not under the usual column, 'View Notices and Orders,' but under different column, 'View Additional Notices and Orders,' therefore, neither the petitioner nor the erstwhile Chartered Accountant was aware of such notices being uploaded under the said different column."
"Once the order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, this Court cannot impose any condition."
"The impugned order dated 26.04.2023 passed by the respondent along with summary of the order in DRC-07 are set aside... The petitioner is granted liberty to deposit 15% of the disputed tax... thereafter... the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing... and shall decide the matter in accordance with law."
TaxTMI 
