Case Title: TvL Sahil Traders vs. State Tax Officer
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Petition Numbers: W.P.Nos. 9234, 9238, 10626 & 10631 of 2025
Date of Judgement: 24.03.2025
Category of Dispute: Violation of Principles of Natural Justice (Service of Notices)
Relevant Sections: Section 73 & 74 of CGST Act, 2017
Judicial Officer: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
Facts of the Case
[Para 3, 3.1, 6]
-
The petitioner, TvL Sahil Traders, challenged assessment orders for FY 2017-18 to 2020-21 issued under Section 73 and 74 of the CGST Act.
-
All notices and orders were uploaded only under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, instead of the usual “Notices and Orders” section.
-
The petitioner claimed unawareness of these uploads until recovery action began on 20.02.2025.
-
The department did not serve any physical notices (e.g., RPAD) and the petitioner, not being tech-savvy, remained unaware of the ex parte proceedings.
Questions in Consideration
[Para 2, 3.1, 6.1]
-
Whether assessment orders uploaded under a non-standard GST portal tab without other modes of service violate the principles of natural justice?
-
Whether such orders should be quashed and remanded for fresh adjudication with due opportunity?
Observations of the Court
[Para 6, 6.1]
-
Notices were not served through RPAD or standard online service methods.
-
The department uploaded notices under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, making them practically inaccessible to the petitioner and his accountant.
-
As no opportunity of hearing was granted, the ex parte orders were deemed to have violated natural justice principles.
-
Although appellate remedy existed, the petitioner was compelled to approach the Court due to coercive recovery measures.
Judgement of the Court
[Para 6.2, 7]
-
The impugned orders and DRC-07 notices for FY 2017–18 to 2020–21 were set aside.
-
The matters were remanded to the first respondent for de novo adjudication.
-
The petitioner was directed to file reply within 2 weeks, and the department was directed to provide 14 days’ hearing notice and complete reassessment within 30 days thereafter.
-
The request for restoration of ₹10 lakh in petitioner’s bank account was declined as premature.
Between Fine Lines
This case reiterates the need for proper service of notices. Merely uploading orders under a non-prominent tab on the GST portal is insufficient and violates natural justice. Courts may quash such orders even if alternative remedies exist, particularly when recovery has already occurred. Proper opportunity of hearing remains vital in GST proceedings.
Summary of Referred Cases
None specifically cited by name in this order.
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.”
