Case Summary:
-
Case Title: M/s. Hitech Building Solutions vs Deputy State Tax Officer-2 & Another
-
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
-
Petition No.: W.P.No.18019 of 2025 & W.M.P.Nos.20212 & 20215 of 2025
-
Date of Judgement: 03.06.2025
-
Category of Dispute: Assessment / Natural Justice / Mode of Service
-
Relevant Sections: Section 169(1) of CGST Act, 2017
-
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Facts of the Case (¶ 2–4):
-
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 10.07.2024 passed for AY 2020-21 and the consequential DRC-07 and bank account attachment (¶ 2).
-
The Show Cause Notice (SCN) was uploaded on the GST portal on 30.08.2023, but no physical copy or alternate mode of service was made (¶ 3).
-
The petitioner claimed ignorance of the SCN and thus could not respond, resulting in an ex parte assessment order (¶ 3).
-
The petitioner offered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax if the matter was remanded (¶ 3.1).
Question(s) in Consideration (¶ 2, ¶ 5–6):
-
Whether uploading of a show cause notice on the GST portal alone satisfies the requirement of proper service under Section 169(1) of CGST Act?
-
Whether non-response from the assessee warrants efforts by the officer to adopt alternate modes of service?
Observations of the Court (¶ 5–7):
-
Though service via portal is valid under Section 169, relying solely on it without trying other prescribed modes (like RPAD) when no response is received is not effective service (¶ 6).
-
Officers must exercise diligence and not treat service through portal as mere formality, especially when notices remain unanswered (¶ 6).
-
Failure to serve effectively deprives the assessee of a fair opportunity and results in violation of natural justice (¶ 7).
Judgement of the Court (¶ 7–8):
-
The impugned assessment order dated 10.07.2024 was set aside (¶ 7(i)).
-
The matter was remanded to the first respondent for fresh consideration (¶ 7(ii)).
-
The petitioner must deposit 25% of disputed tax within 2 weeks (¶ 7(iii)).
-
Upon such deposit, petitioner may file a reply with documents within 2 weeks (¶ 7(iv)).
-
Department must issue 14 days’ notice for personal hearing before passing fresh order (¶ 7(v)).
-
On submission of proof of 25% payment, the bank account shall be unfrozen by the second respondent (¶ 7(vi)).
Between Fine Lines:
-
Uploading notices on the GST portal is valid but not sufficient if the taxpayer is unaware.
-
Officers must ensure effective communication using all legally permitted modes.
-
Violation of natural justice due to ineffective service of SCN renders the assessment order invalid.
-
Court allows relief subject to partial tax deposit by the petitioner.
-
Effective communication is foundational to lawful tax adjudication.
Summary of Referred Cases:
| Name of Case | Citation | Summary | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| No cited case mentioned explicitly in the judgment. | – | – | – |
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.”
