2025 (9) TMI 388 - HC - GST

Service by GST portal without personal hearing violated natural justice; AO should use alternatives under s.169; s.16(4) ITC denial quashed

Tvl. A.T. Sabuthomas contractor Represented by its Proprietor Sabu Thomas Versus The State Tax Officer, Nilgiris.

HC found the show-cause notice service via the GST portal, without personal hearing, violated natural justice where the petitioner did not receive ... Claim of ITC on the ground of time limitation - petitioner failed to avail the opportunity of hearing - violation of principles of natural justice - 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. This Court is inclined to quash the impugned order only the aspect of aforesaid issue pertaining to Section 16(4) of GST Act. As far as other issues are concerned, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the respondent - The impugned order dated 17.08.2024 is quashed only to the extent of issue relates to the claim made by the petitioner for ITC, which is barred by limitation in terms of Section 16 (4) of the CGST Act, 2017. Petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED Whether an assessment order that confirms proposals in a show cause notice uploaded on the GST Portal, without any effective personal hearing, is vitiated where the taxpayer did not receive physical service and did not respond to portal notices. Whether service of show cause notices and reminders solely by uploading on the GST Portal, without exploring other modes of service under Section 169(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 (including RPAD), constitutes ineffective service such that an ex parte order based on such service is unsustainable. Whether the claim for Input Tax Credit (ITC) is barred by limitation under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act, 2017 and, if so, whether that aspect of the assessment must be quashed. Whether remand with conditions (payment of a portion of disputed tax and opportunity to file reply) is an appropriate remedy where procedural infirmity in service and lack of personal hearing are established. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1 - Validity of assessment/order passed without effective personal hearing where notices were uploaded on GST Portal Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require opportunity of hearing before adverse orders; service provisions under the CGST Act permit electronic modes (portal) but also prescribe alternative modes under Section 169(1). Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on its own prior reasoning in a common order (dated 17.10.2024) addressing limitation under Section 16(4) (see Issue 3) and applied the same reasoning as to the ITC limitation aspect in the present matter. No contrary precedent was applied or overruled with respect to portal service versus physical service. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted that uploading a show cause notice on the GST Portal is, in general, a sufficient mode of service. However, where repeated reminders via the same portal produce no response from the taxpayer and no physical service is effected, the officer must apply mind to alternative, valid modes of service under Section 169(1). Mere mechanical reliance on portal uploads and issuance of reminders, followed by ex parte confirmation of proposals, is not consonant with the object of the Act and may amount to ineffective service and denial of meaningful opportunity of personal hearing. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - An assessment confirming proposals in a portal-uploaded show cause notice, where the taxpayer was unaware and no personal hearing was granted and where the officer failed to consider alternative service modes, is vitiated for want of effective service and opportunity to be heard. Obiter - Remarks stressing RPAD as the preferred mode when portal communication fails are persuasive guidance rather than an absolute prescription in every case. Conclusions: The impugned order is set aside insofar as it was passed without affording an effective personal hearing and despite lack of physical service; the officer must, on remand, ensure effective service and provide a personal hearing before passing fresh orders. Issue 2 - Effectiveness of portal-only service and duty of officer to explore alternative modes under Section 169(1) Legal framework: Section 169(1) of the CGST Act provides multiple prescribed modes of service; effective service is necessary to achieve the object of the GST Act and to ensure that statutory notices conduce to adjudicative fairness. Precedent Treatment: The Court drew upon statutory prescription and prior judicial approach emphasizing effective notice; no departure from settled law was undertaken. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that while portal upload constitutes valid service, it ceases to be effectively operative when repeated reminders elicit no response. In such circumstances the officer must explore other statutory modes (e.g., RPAD) to effectuate actual notice. Mere formal compliance (upload + reminders) without further steps amounts to empty formalities likely to generate multiplicity of litigation and waste adjudicative resources. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Officers must, where portal communications are unresponsive, actively consider and effect alternative prescribed modes of service to make service effective. Obiter - Observations on administrative inconvenience and policy consequences of formalistic service are illustrative of rationale but ancillary to the holding. Conclusions: Service by portal alone, without further attempts at effective service when the taxpayer does not respond, is insufficient; the matter requires remand so the respondent can effectuate valid notice and hold a personal hearing. Issue 3 - Limitation on ITC claim under Section 16(4) of the CGST Act Legal framework: Section 16(4) prescribes time-bar/limitation for availing Input Tax Credit; where the claim is time-barred, it cannot be allowed irrespective of other merits unless legislative conditions for extension/relief are satisfied. Precedent Treatment: The Court applied a prior common order of this Court dated 17.10.2024 dealing with Section 16(4) and treated that reasoning as dispositive for the limitation issue in the present petition. Interpretation and reasoning: On the materials, the ITC claim before the Court was found to be barred by limitation under Section 16(4). The Court therefore quashed the impugned order only insofar as it related to the time-barred ITC claim, consistent with its earlier determination on the same legal question. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A claim for ITC barred by Section 16(4) must be quashed; identical issue previously decided by the Court is followed. Obiter - No extended discussion on exceptions or distinct factual scenarios was undertaken; the ruling is narrowly confined to the limitation application in the present facts. Conclusions: The impugned order is quashed to the extent it adjudicated a Section 16(4) time-barred ITC claim; that aspect is finally set aside in the petitioner's favour. Issue 4 - Appropriate remedy: remand with conditions including interim payment and fresh personal hearing Legal framework: Courts may remit matters for fresh adjudication where procedural infirmity taints prior orders; conditional stays/remands (e.g., requiring partial deposit) are permissible to balance competing equities and to ensure compliance with statutory objectives. Precedent Treatment: The Court relied on general remedial principles permitting conditional remand and partial deposit to secure revenue interest while ensuring the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard. Interpretation and reasoning: Given the established procedural defects (ineffective service and no personal hearing) and the separate finding that the ITC claim is time-barred, the Court split the relief: quashing the ITC aspect and setting aside the remaining impugned order for fresh consideration. To protect revenue interest and incentivize expeditious resolution, the Court conditioned the remand on payment of 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks, filing of reply within three weeks of payment, and issuance of a 14-day notice fixing date of personal hearing before passing fresh orders. Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - A remand conditioned on a partial deposit and mandated personal hearing is an appropriate equitable remedy where service and hearing defects are found but some issues (e.g., limitation) are separable and decided on the merits. Obiter - The specific percentage (25%) is a case-specific supervisory direction rather than a universal formula. Conclusions: The impugned order is set aside except as to the quashed Section 16(4) ITC aspect; the matter is remitted subject to payment of 25% of the disputed tax, prompt filing of reply, and an express requirement that the respondent issue a 14-day notice fixing a date for personal hearing and thereafter decide the matter on merits in accordance with law.