2025 (6) TMI 1419 - HC - GST

GST assessment order quashed for denial of personal hearing opportunity despite ineffective portal service under Section 169

M/s. Hitech Building Solutions Versus Deputy State Tax Officer-2 and Deputy Commissioner (ST), Chennai

The HC set aside a GST assessment order passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity for personal hearing. The court held that merely uploading ... Violation of principles of natural justice - ex-parte order - Non-service of SCN - physical service of SCN not done - petitioner has not been heard before passing the impugned order - Lifting of bank account of the petitioner maintained in Indian Bank, Anna Nagar Branch - petitioner has voluntarily come forward to deposit 25% of the disputed tax - HELD THAT:- It is evident that the impugned show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal Tab. 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. 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 terms, by issuing the directions imposed - the matter is remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration. Petition disposed off by way of remand. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether uploading a show cause notice on the GST portal alone, without physical service, satisfies the requirements of service and principles of natural justice where the assessee did not receive or respond to the notice. 2. Whether the assessing authority is obliged to explore alternative modes of service under Section 169(1) of the GST Act (e.g., RPAD) where notices uploaded on the portal elicit no response, and the legal consequence of failing to do so. 3. Whether an assessment/order confirmed ex parte in such circumstances is liable to be set aside and remitted for fresh consideration, and on what terms (including interim relief such as deposit and de-freezing of bank accounts). ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Service by uploading on GST portal and principles of natural justice Legal framework: Service of show cause notices may be effected by uploading on the prescribed GST portal; principles of natural justice require that a person be given an effective opportunity of hearing before adverse orders are passed. Precedent Treatment: No specific precedents were relied upon in the judgment; the Court treated the statutory modes of service and common law principles of audi alteram partem as governing. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged that uploading on the portal is a valid mode of service under the statute. However, where the assessee was not aware of the portal upload and did not receive the notice, reliance on portal upload alone resulted in no real opportunity to be heard. The Tribunal emphasised that formal compliance with a mode of service which does not result in effective communication cannot substitute for an actual opportunity to respond; an ex parte confirmation of proposals in such circumstances infringes principles of natural justice. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where service by portal upload does not, in fact, bring the notice to the notice of the recipient and no response is possible, confirmation of proposals without affording an effective opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside. (This outcome is applied as binding ratio in the context of the facts.) Conclusion: The impugned order confirming proposals based solely on portal-uploaded notices without effective service was set aside for lack of opportunity to be heard. Issue 2 - Duty of the Officer to explore alternative modes of service under Section 169(1) Legal framework: Section 169(1) of the GST Act prescribes modes of service (including portal upload and other modes such as RPAD). Administrative officers are required to effect service by modes available under the statute. Precedent Treatment: The Court did not overrule or follow specific authorities; it articulated a duty-focused approach consistent with statutory purpose. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that although portal service is a valid mode, if repeated reminders elicit no response, the officer must apply mind and explore other statutory modes of service to achieve effective communication. Merely persisting with a single mode that produces no result reduces service to an empty formality and undermines the object of the Act, leading to unnecessary litigation. The Court expressed a preference for service by RPAD where portal service fails to elicit a response, as it better ensures receipt and affords the opportunity to be heard. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An officer must, where portal-based service does not produce a response, explore alternative statutory modes of service (preferably RPAD) to ensure effective service; failure to do so can render subsequent ex parte orders vulnerable. (This is applied as a binding procedural principle.) Conclusion: The assessing authority's failure to explore alternative modes of service where portal notice got no response contributed to ineffective service, supporting setting aside the order and remittal for fresh consideration. Issue 3 - Setting aside ex parte assessment, remand for fresh consideration, and terms including deposit and de-freezing bank accounts Legal framework: Principles permitting judicial interference where natural justice is violated; courts may set aside orders and impose terms when remanding for fresh consideration; interim measures (e.g., conditional de-freezing on deposit) are within equitable judicial powers. Precedent Treatment: No specific appellate authorities were cited; the Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to secure effective hearing and to balance revenue interests with procedural fairness. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the lack of effective service and resultant absence of personal hearing, the Court concluded the assessment/order must be set aside. Balancing interests, the Court accepted the assessee's volunteered offer to deposit 25% of disputed tax and directed remand on explicit procedural terms: payment within two weeks; filing of reply with documents within two weeks after payment; issuance of a clear 14-day notice affording personal hearing; fresh decision in accordance with law. The Court further directed that upon proof of the 25% payment, the department shall issue directions to the bank to de-freeze the account forthwith. These measures were designed to ensure both the taxpayer's right to be heard and protection of the revenue. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where an order is set aside for lack of effective service, a court may remand the matter for fresh consideration and impose conditional terms (including deposit) to secure interim relief such as de-freezing of bank accounts; compliance with the imposed procedure and opportunity of personal hearing must precede any fresh determination. (This is applied as operative ratio in remedying the procedural defect.) Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and remanded with specific timelines and conditions (25% deposit, filing of reply, 14-day personal hearing), and the bank attachment was ordered to be lifted upon proof of deposit, thereby restoring procedural fairness while safeguarding revenue interest. Cross-references and Practical Directions Where portal-uploaded notices receive no response, see Issue 2 (duty to explore alternative modes) and Issue 1 (requirement of effective opportunity to be heard); non-exercise of such duty may render subsequent ex parte confirmations susceptible to being set aside (see Issue 3 regarding remedial terms and conditional interim relief).