9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 1171X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 22.05.2024, which has been uploaded in the GST Portal under the Column ''View Additional Notices/Orders'' instead of usual column ''View Notices/Orders'', and hence, the said notice was unnoticed by the petitioner; that thereafter, the respondent also sent reminders dated 26.06.2024, 19.07.2024 and 19.08.2024, and since the same have also been uploaded in the GST Portal under the said different Column, those notices have also been unnoticed by the petitioner, however, the respondent passed the impugned order by stating that the petitioner failed to file reply nor appeared before the respondent for the personal hearing, hence, the proposals contained in the show cause notice are confirmed. 3.1 The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the reasons for non responsive to the show cause notice and reminders is purely owing to the fact that the petitioner has no knowledge of the same, as they were uploaded in the GST Portal under the unusual column, i.e. 'View Additional Notice/Orders', and only when the petitioner received an intimation as regards the attachment of their bank account, the petitioner immediately verified the onl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vinced with the same, would have either dropped the proceedings or else would have provided the reasons for rejection, which would have paved a way for the petitioner to go on Appeal challenging such rejection, however, since such an opportunity was deprived to the petitioner, the petitioner is now forced to pay tax/interest/penalty. 3.6 Finally, it is averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent to the impugned order passed by the respondent, the petitioner has voluntarily paid 80% of the disputed tax, therefore, prays this Court to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh consideration, so that the petitioner would be able to putforth their case by way of filing proper and effective reply. 4. Per contra, Ms..Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, the learned Government Advocate (T) would submit that initially, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 22.05.2024 calling upon the petitioner to pay the tax in respect of mismatch liability arising out of the comparison of GSTR 3B and GSTR 1 returns filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 2019- 20; that since the petitioner failed to respond to the said notice, the respondent sent three re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n cases, where, the assessees have not engaged any other Consultant for filing their returns, |the respondent-Department is adopting the mode of sending service through e-mail to the address provided at the time of registration, and in the event of the same getting bounced back, they are sending by a messenger. Therefore, it is contended that in terms of Section 169 of the Act, the mode of service adopted by the respondent can longer be deemed to be insufficient service. 4.3 Therefore, the learned Government Advocate contended that in terms of the provisions contained in Section 169 (d), the respondent has complied with the service and the petitioner has been given sufficient opportunities and time as well for filing their reply, despite the same, as the petitioner has failed to come forward with any reply nor appeared for the personal hearing, hence, the respondent confirmed the proposals contained in the show cause notice and passed the impugned order; that, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the impugned order is an ex parte order, as it is the petitioner, who failed to utilize all the opportunities given to them, they cannot come out with a false plea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice, has caused three reminders to bring to the notice of the petitioner about the show cause notice, and hence, the petitioner cannot take advantage of their ignorance, as ignorantia juris non excusat. 7. Thus, the issue that arise for consideration in this Writ Petition is as to whether the impugned order is an ex pare order and the mode of service adopted by the respondent is an effective service in terms of the provisions of Section 169 of the GST Act? 7.1 The issue that has been raised in the present Writ Petition often remains to be a recurrent issues, as in most of the assessees' case, notice were sent by the respondent-GST Department only by way of uploading the same in the GST Portal and not being served in person. 7.2 Therefore, this Court endeavours to resolve the said issue, as the answer to the said issue would not only act as an elixir to the regime of the GST Department and would also put a spoke for the assessees from approaching this Court in getting blanket orders pleading ignorance of notice sent to them regarding the assessment proceedings on the ground that they were not served in person and were merely uploaded in the GST Portal. 7.3 In the pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... residence; or (c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; or (d) by making it available on the common portal; or (e) by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality in which the taxable person or the person to whom it is issued is last known to have resided, carried on business or personally worked for gain; or (f) if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice. (2) Every decision, order, summons, notice or any communication shall be deemed to have been served on the date on which it is tendered or published or a copy thereof is affixed in the manner provided in sub-section (1). (3) When such decision, order, summons, notice or any communication is sent by registered post or speed post, it shall be deemed to have been received by the addressee at the expiry of the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rts to adopt the mode of service of notice by giving or tendering it directly or by registered post with acknowledgment due, there may not be any complaint from the assessee that no opportunity is provided to them, and further, this mode satisfies the principles of natural justice. 9.4 Thus, it is the grievance of the assessees that the new mode of service adopted by the respondent, via. On-line portal is not an effective mode of service. Though according to the learned Government Advocate, most of GST Practitioner are finding the On-line services as effective mode for their communication, as they could have easy access only through online service, it is not in all the cases, where, the assessees are engaging such Practitioner, as there are other assessees, who are illiterate and common plebeians and though they are engaging Consultants, Consultants are finding difficult to view the on-line service then and there, as they are not only the Consultant acting on behalf of the particular assessee alone, but for other assessees, therefore, they would be obviously pre-occupied with certain commitments and they cannot be expected to view the on-line portal ever and anon to find out the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e delay, which is beyond their limit and once again, petitioner is constrained to approach this Court seeking permission to exhaust their Appellate remedy. 9.7 Thus, it is pertinent to mention here that though Section 169 of the Act, particularly, clause (d) prescribes mode of service via. Online Portal, the very same Section also prescribes many modes of services for sending notice to the assessees, of which, valid modes of sending GST Notices are hand-delivering the notices either directly or by a messenger by a courier to the taxpayer or his authorized representative, by registered post or a speed post or a courier with an acknowledgement addressed to the last known address of the taxpayer. 9.8 Thus, when the respondent-Department realizes the fact that the notice effected via, On-line portal service does not fetch them any reply/response, instead of sticking on to the similar of mode of service by sending notices/reminders incessantly, they could change mode of service and this Court suggests that notice through RPAD would be the best mode of service, in which case, the assessee cannot take advantage of the notice being unnoticed or plead ignorance, and in the case of the sam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aside. ii) Consequently, the matter is remanded to the respondent for fresh consideration. iii) Thereafter, the petitioner is directed to file a reply along with supportive documents within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. iv) Thereupon, the respondent is directed to consider the reply and shall issue a clear 14 days notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and shall hear the petitioner in full and decide the matter in accordance with law. v) Insofar as the Bank Attachment Notice issued in Form DRC -13 dated 05.02.2025 is concerned, it is needless to state that once the impugned order is set aside, the Bank Attachment Order can no longer survive and the same to be jettisoned by the respondent. Thus, the respondent is directed to issue appropriate communication in that regard on the petitioner's Banker to de-freeze the bank account of the petitioner forthwith. vi) So far as the aspect on adoption of mode of service by the respondent-Department is concerned, this Court would like to point out that once the respondent-Department realizes the fact that notice effected via, On-line portal service does n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
