2025 (8) TMI 555 - HC - GST

Petitioner Granted Benefit of Doubt on Notice Service Under Section 73; Fresh Notice Ordered with Clear Timeline

The HC found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the service of notices under section 73, as the impugned order was not ... Violation of principles of natural justice - service of notices - notices issued u/s 73 of the Act, were uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab of the G.S.T. Portal - HELD THAT:- At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab 'view notices and orders'. On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore, there is no outstanding demand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. Petiiton disposed off. ISSUES: Whether issuance of notice and order under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, via uploading on the GST portal without physical/oral hearing or proper notification violates principles of natural justice.Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefit under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, 2017 in the context of the impugned order.Whether the assessing officer is responsible for the manner in which the GST portal displays notices and orders to the assessee.Whether the petitioner can be relegated to statutory remedies given the circumstances of non-receipt of proper notice and the deposit of the disputed amount. RULINGS / HOLDINGS: On the issue of violation of natural justice, the Court held that 'No physical/oral hearing in the matter was afforded to Petitioner' and that the impugned order was passed 'in gross violation of the principles of natural Justice,' warranting quashing of the order under writ jurisdiction.Regarding the benefit under Section 75(4) of the GST Act, the Court directed that the petitioner may be given an opportunity to submit a written reply treating the impugned order as a final notice, implying that procedural fairness must precede any denial of such benefit.The Court found that the assessing officer 'is not to blame' for the manner in which the GST portal displays notices, as there is 'no option/ choice available to the assessing officer to upload the order' to ensure visibility under particular tabs, and any portal issues must be addressed by the GST Network.Given that the entire disputed amount is deposited with the State Government and no outstanding demand exists, the Court declined to keep the petition pending or require a counter affidavit, instead directing fresh proceedings with proper notice and opportunity to be heard. RATIONALE: The Court applied the principles of natural justice, emphasizing the requirement of 'physical/oral hearing' and confrontation of adverse material before passing an order under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017.Reliance was placed on prior judicial precedent recognizing the importance of proper notice and opportunity to be heard in GST proceedings.The Court acknowledged the statutory framework of the GST Act and procedural rules governing issuance of notices and orders, highlighting the limitation of the assessing officer's control over the GST portal's technical functioning.In the interest of justice and considering the deposit of the disputed amount, the Court adopted a pragmatic approach by directing fresh issuance of notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice and a reasoned order, rather than dismissing the petition or forcing statutory remedies without procedural fairness.