Violation of natural justice in GST adjudication where lack of effective notice and hearing led to set aside and remand, liberty to reply granted

Adjudication under the GST regime breached principles of natural justice where the adjudication order was uploaded only under an ancillary portal tab and no proved notification by SMS or e-mail was shown, and no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded as mandated by Section 75(4), the order being adverse. Consequently the appellate order refusing relief solely on delay was set aside for failure to appreciate non-receipt of effective service, and the adjudication order was set aside with remand for fresh adjudication; the affected party is granted liberty to file a reply to the notice to show cause within two weeks.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate order dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation is sustainable when there is no proof that notifications (SMS/e-mail) were sent and the orders were uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab; (ii) Whether the adjudication order passed without affording a personal hearing and without recording reasons is valid.

Issue (i): Whether dismissal of the appeal for delay is justified in the absence of evidence of service/notification beyond upload on the GST e-portal "Additional Notices and Orders" tab.

Analysis: The appellate order relied on the possibility that SMS and e-mail notifications must have been sent but does not record any factual finding that such notifications were actually dispatched or received. There is no independent proof on record demonstrating service by SMS or e-mail; the mere upload under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab, without proof of notification, is insufficient to establish effective service for limitation purposes.

Conclusion: The appellate order dismissing the appeal as barred by limitation is not sustainable in the absence of proof of notification and is set aside in so far as it rests on the unproven assumption of service.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication order is valid when passed without affording a personal hearing and without recording reasons.

Analysis: Section 75(4) mandates that an opportunity of hearing be granted where an adverse order is contemplated. The adjudication order on record is adverse, was passed without personal hearing, and lacks reasons explaining the basis for the conclusion reached. Similar precedent has set aside such orders and remanded for fresh adjudication after affording an opportunity to respond to the show cause notice.

Conclusion: The adjudication order is vitiated for failure to afford personal hearing and for lack of reasons; it is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh adjudication after permitting the respondent to file a reply and be afforded personal hearing.

Final Conclusion: The appellate order and the adjudication order are set aside and the matter is remitted to the adjudicating authority for fresh adjudication after the person affected is permitted to file a reply within the specified time and is afforded a personal hearing; the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an adverse adjudication order is uploaded on an electronic portal without verifiable proof of notification by SMS or e-mail and is passed without affording the statutory opportunity of personal hearing or recording reasons, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the impugned orders and remand for fresh adjudication after granting the opportunity to reply and be heard.

---