Case Summary
Case Title: CSM Animal Husbandry and Agri Tech v. Deputy Commissioner ST FAC & Anr.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Petition Numbers: W.P. Nos. 24211 & 16101 of 2025 with W.M.P. Nos. 18229, 27256 & 27257 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 10 July 2025
Category of Dispute: Assessment Order – Natural Justice (Opportunity of Hearing)
Relevant Provisions: Article 226 of Constitution of India, Section 169 of the CGST Act, Form GST DRC-07, Form GST APL-02
Facts (Paras 2–4)
The petitioner, CSM Animal Husbandry and Agri Tech, challenged an assessment order dated 16.01.2024 and an appellate rejection order dated 19.03.2025. The petitioner argued that all notices were only uploaded on the GST portal and no physical or alternative service was effected, leaving them unaware. Consequently, no reply could be filed, and the order was passed ex parte without affording a personal hearing. Although an appeal was filed, it was dismissed on limitation grounds. The petitioner also highlighted that the entire disputed tax amount had already been recovered.
Questions (Issues before the Court)
-
Whether mere uploading of notices on the GST portal suffices as effective service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
-
Whether an assessment order can be sustained when no personal hearing was given.
-
Whether dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds was justified when principles of natural justice were breached.
Observations (Paras 7–9)
The Court acknowledged that while portal upload is a valid mode of service under Section 169, effective service must be ensured. If repeated reminders do not elicit a response, the officer must explore alternate prescribed modes such as RPAD to ensure the taxpayer is aware. Passing ex parte orders by fulfilling only “empty formalities” undermines the principles of natural justice and results in multiplicity of litigation. The Court further noted that no personal hearing was provided, which itself vitiated the assessment.
Judgement (Paras 10–11)
-
The rejection order dated 19.03.2025 was quashed.
-
The assessment order dated 16.01.2024 was set aside and remanded back for fresh consideration, subject to the petitioner paying 15% of the disputed tax within four weeks.
-
Petitioner directed to file reply/objection with documents within three weeks of payment.
-
Respondent directed to issue a 14-day clear notice, fix a date for personal hearing, and pass fresh orders on merits.
-
W.P. No. 24211 of 2025 disposed; W.P. No. 16101 of 2025 allowed.
Table of Cases Referred
| Case Name | Court’s Verdict / Ratio |
|---|---|
| No external precedents explicitly referred | Judgment based primarily on interpretation of Section 169 CGST Act and principles of natural justice |
Between Fine Lines (Practical Takeaway)
This judgment underscores that tax officers cannot mechanically rely only on portal uploads for service of notices. If a taxpayer does not respond, officers must use alternate prescribed modes such as RPAD. Importantly, ex parte orders without personal hearing are invalid. For industry, this reinforces the right to effective notice and hearing, ensuring fairness in GST proceedings.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
