Case: Vamana Engineering Company v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Vanagaram Assessment Circle
Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Petition No.: W.P. No. 17179 of 2025 & W.M.P. Nos. 19468 & 19469 of 2025
Date of Judgment: 03.06.2025
Relevant Section: Section 73 and Section 169 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 2017
Category: Natural Justice – Service of Notice / Assessment Order
Facts (Paras 2–4)
Vamana Engineering Company challenged an order dated 06.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST/TNGST Act for FY 2019–20. The petitioner contended that though a show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal on 15.05.2024, the firm could not access it as its GST registration was suspended, rendering it unaware of the notice. Consequently, the order confirming the proposed demand was passed ex parte without hearing. The petitioner volunteered to deposit 25% of the disputed tax if given a fresh opportunity, and sought lifting of the bank attachment.
Questions before the Court
Whether uploading a show cause notice on the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 when the taxpayer’s registration was suspended and the assessee had no access to the portal.
Observations (Paras 5–7)
The Court noted that while uploading a notice on the GST portal is a recognized mode of service under Section 169, the officer should apply prudence when no response is received, especially if the registration is suspended. It emphasized that service of notice must be effective and not a mere empty formality. The authority should explore alternate modes of service such as RPAD or email as provided in Section 169(1). Passing ex parte orders merely because a notice is uploaded, without ensuring receipt, violates the principles of natural justice and causes unnecessary litigation.
Judgment (Paras 7–8)
The Court held that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing and thus, the assessment order dated 06.08.2024 was quashed. The matter was remanded to the respondent with the following directions:
-
Petitioner to deposit 25% of the disputed tax within two weeks.
-
Petitioner to file a reply with documents within two weeks thereafter.
-
Respondent to issue a 14-day notice for a personal hearing and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law.
The writ petition was disposed of with no costs.
Summary of Cases Referred
| Case | Citation | Principle Laid Down |
|---|---|---|
| No specific case cited | — | The Court relied on interpretation of Section 169 of the CGST Act and principle of natural justice requiring effective service of notice. |
Between Fine Lines
This decision reinforces that mere portal upload of notices does not suffice when the assessee’s access is blocked. Tax authorities must ensure effective service of communication and provide a real opportunity of defense before passing orders. For trade and practitioners, it underscores the importance of ensuring updated email and postal contact in GST records, and for officers, it mandates due diligence before concluding ex parte assessments.
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.”
