Case Reference
M/s Raja Babu Kapra Ghar v. Union of India & Ors.
Patna High Court
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6640 of 2025
Judgment Date: 23 July 2025
Relevant Sections: Section 73(9), Section 75(4), Section 75(5), Section 169 – BGST Act, 2017
Category: Natural Justice / Validity of Assessment Order
Facts (Para 2–3)
The petitioner, a proprietary firm engaged in textiles, challenged an ex parte assessment order dated 06.02.2025 issued under Section 73(9) of the BGST Act, 2017 for FY 2020-21. The order raised a demand of ₹7,58,105.36, including interest and penalty. The petitioner argued that no proper show cause notice or hearing intimation was served in terms of Section 169, as the notice was uploaded only under the portal heading “Additional Notices and Orders.” The petitioner never received email/SMS communication and thus could not participate in the proceedings.
Questions before the Court
-
Whether uploading of notice only under “Additional Notices and Orders” on the GST portal amounts to valid service under Section 169?
-
Whether denial of opportunity of hearing under Section 75(4) vitiates the assessment proceedings?
Observations (Para 5–12)
The Court noted the petitioner’s categorical assertion (para 16 of writ petition) that no notice was served except through the “Additional Notices and Orders” heading, which went uncontested in the State’s counter affidavit.
-
The Court referred to Lord Vishnu Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI (CWJC 5291/2024), Shree Shyam Trading Co. v. UOI (CWJC 5661/2025), and Axiom Gen Nxt India Pvt. Ltd. v. CTO (Madras HC, W.P. 1114/2025), where Courts emphasized that effective service requires more than mere portal upload and should ideally be by two modes.
-
It reiterated that principles of natural justice under Section 75(4) require opportunity of hearing before passing adverse orders.
-
Since the respondent failed to establish valid service, the Court held that the petitioner was wrongly deprived of the right to defend.
Judgment (Para 12–15)
The Court quashed the impugned order and directed:
-
Petitioner to appear before the Joint Commissioner/competent authority within 3 weeks (by 13 August 2025).
-
Authority to provide opportunity for filing show cause and personal hearing.
-
A reasoned order to be passed within 4 months after hearing.
Thus, the writ was allowed.
Table of Referred Cases
| Case | Court & Petition | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| M/s Lord Vishnu Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI | Patna HC, CWJC No. 5291/2024 | Held that effective service of notice requires more than portal upload, stressing alternate modes to ensure assessee’s knowledge. |
| M/s Shree Shyam Trading Co. v. UOI | Patna HC, CWJC No. 5661/2025 | Ex parte assessment set aside; Court emphasized that taxpayer must be made aware through proper service, not just portal entries. |
| M/s Axiom Gen Nxt India Pvt. Ltd. v. CTO | Madras HC, W.P. No. 1114/2025 | Mere uploading under “Additional Notices” insufficient; opportunity of hearing mandatory under Section 75(4). |
Between Fine Lines
For businesses, this judgment is a strong reminder that mere uploading of notices on the GST portal is not sufficient service. Unless the department ensures effective communication (email, SMS, or other statutory modes), any order passed will be vulnerable to challenge for violation of natural justice. Taxpayers should actively monitor the GST portal but also challenge any adverse orders where proper notice was not served.
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.”
.){kind=link}