TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Service of GST s.73 show-cause notice without hearing or reply - impugned assessment order set aside; treated as s.74A</h1> Dominant issue: validity of issuance and service of show-cause notice under s.73 of the GST Act where no personal hearing or reply was furnished. ... No opportunity of personal hearing - failed to file reply within the time - Validity of issuance of notice under Section 73 - mode of service - possibility of sending notices by way of other modes prescribed in Section 169 - HELD THAT:- 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. 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. Therefore, this Court finds that there is a lack of opportunities being provided to serve the notices/orders etc., effectively to the petitioner. Issuance of notice under Section 73 - It is clear that the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent without any jurisdiction. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the respondent. Further, to avoid any further delay and inconvenience to both the parties, this Court is inclined to direct the petitioner to treat the impugned assessment order as a notice issued under Section 74A of the GST Act and file reply to the same. Issues: (i) Whether the impugned assessment order passed without personal hearing and following service solely by uploading notices on the GST portal was vitiated for lack of effective service and opportunity of hearing; (ii) Whether issuance of notice under Section 73 of the GST Act and consequential assessment for the financial year 2024-2025 was without jurisdiction given omission of Sections 73 and 74 and applicability of Section 74A from 01.04.2024.Issue (i): Whether service by uploading on the GST portal without exploring other modes under Section 169(1) when there was no response, and passing an ex parte order without personal hearing, rendered the assessment order invalid.Analysis: The Court examined the facts showing notices were uploaded on the GST common portal, the petitioner did not receive personal notice and no personal hearing was granted prior to passing the assessment. The respondent conceded that opportunity of personal hearing was not provided. The Court considered Section 169(1) modes of service and observed that where a taxpayer does not respond to portal notices the officer must consider alternative modes (including RPAD) to achieve effective service rather than merely fulfilling formalities leading to ex parte orders. The Court addressed the consequences of ineffective service and absence of hearing on the validity of the assessment order.Conclusion: The impugned order is vitiated for lack of effective service and absence of personal hearing; relief is granted in favour of the petitioner on this ground.Issue (ii): Whether the notice and assessment issued under Section 73 for the financial year 2024-2025 was without jurisdiction because Sections 73 and 74 were omitted with effect from 01.04.2024 and Section 74A applies.Analysis: The Court noted the legislative change omitting Sections 73 and 74 from 01.04.2024 and that only Section 74A governs assessments for the relevant period. The impugned show cause notice and assessment were issued under Section 73 despite the omission, and the Court held that such exercise lacked jurisdiction. To prevent delay and facilitate fresh adjudication, the Court directed that the impugned order be treated as a notice under Section 74A and afforded opportunity to file objections.Conclusion: The assessment issued under Section 73 for 2024-2025 was without jurisdiction; the petitioner’s challenge on this ground succeeds.Final Conclusion: The impugned assessment order dated 17.06.2025 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the respondent for fresh consideration under the correct statutory provision (Section 74A), with directions to effect effective service and grant personal hearing; overall relief is granted to the petitioner enabling fresh adjudication consistent with statutory requirements.Ratio Decidendi: Where notices uploaded on the GST portal do not elicit a response, the officer must consider alternative modes of service prescribed in Section 169(1) to ensure effective service and provide opportunity of personal hearing; assessments issued under a statutory provision omitted by law for the relevant period are without jurisdiction and must be set aside and reconsidered under the applicable provision (Section 74A) after affording the taxpayer an opportunity to be heard.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
