New Grace Automech Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State Tax Officer

Mr. B. Thirumalai, learned counsel on record for the writ petitioner, and Mr. V. Prashanth Kiran, learned Government Advocate (Taxes), who accepted notice on behalf of the lone respondent, are before this Writ Court. Due to the narrow scope of the captioned writ petition, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the main writ petition was taken up and heard out. The writ petitioner has challenged an order dated 07.02.2022, bearing reference ZD330222000916X (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned order’ for the sake of convenience and clarity), which makes certain tax demands under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘TN-G & ST Act’ for the sake of brevity and convenience). Despite the numerous averments in the writ affidavit, the sole point canvassed by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner is that the impugned order was not served on the writ petitioner by following the method of service outlined in Section 169(1)(b) of the TN-G & ST Act. This provision stipulates that any decision, order, summons, notice, or other communication under the Act should be served by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized representative at his last known place of business or residence. The failure to adhere to this prescribed method of service, as argued by the petitioner’s counsel, renders the service of the impugned order legally ineffective, thus undermining the subsequent tax demands and enforcement actions based on such an improperly served order.

The writ petitioner’s contention emphasizes the importance of strict compliance with statutory procedural requirements, asserting that any deviation from these prescribed norms could compromise the legal validity of administrative actions and decisions. Consequently, the petitioner seeks relief from the court, requesting that the impugned order be quashed due to the procedural irregularity in its service, thereby nullifying the tax demands raised therein. The learned counsel for the petitioner elaborated that the impugned order, despite being critical to the petitioner’s business and financial obligations under the GST regime, was not communicated in a manner that conforms to the statutory requirements, specifically the personal service methods enumerated under Section 169(1)(b). The procedural lapse, according to the counsel, deprived the petitioner of the opportunity to respond appropriately or to take timely corrective measures, thereby resulting in a prejudicial administrative action.

Further, the petitioner’s counsel argued that the impugned order, being pivotal in determining the tax liability, must be served in a manner that ensures actual receipt and acknowledgment by the petitioner or his authorized representative, thereby upholding the principles of natural justice and administrative fairness. The learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, contended that the order was made available through electronic means and asserted compliance with the overall communication requirements of the Act. However, the petitioner’s stance remains that the specific method of service prescribed by Section 169(1)(b) is mandatory and not merely directory, thus necessitating strict adherence.

In light of these arguments, the court is urged to scrutinize the procedural adherence in the service of the impugned order and its consequent legal validity. The petitioner’s request underscores the need for administrative bodies to follow statutory protocols meticulously to ensure the enforceability of their orders and decisions. The outcome of this case hinges on the court’s interpretation of the statutory service requirements and their applicability to the impugned administrative action, which could set a significant precedent for similar disputes under the GST framework.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner, adverting to Section 169(1)(b) of the TN-G&ST Act, submitted that it is imperative that the impugned order be served on the writ petitioner through registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgment due at the writ petitioner’s last known address of business or residence. Responding to this lone point on which the captioned writ petition is predicated, learned Revenue counsel drew the attention of this Court to Section 169(1)(d) of the TN-G&ST Act, which provides for service by making the order available in the common portal. This writ Court deems it appropriate to extract and reproduce Sections 169(1)(b) and (d) of the TN-G&ST Act, which read as follows: ‘169. Service of notice in certain circumstances- (1) Any decision, order, summons, notice, or other communication under this Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served by any one of the following methods, namely: (a) by giving or tendering it directly or by a messenger including a courier to the addressee or the taxable person or to his manager or authorized representative or an advocate or a tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person or to a person regularly employed by him in connection with the business, or to any adult member of the family residing with the taxable person; (b) by registered post or speed post or courier with acknowledgment due, to the person for whom it is intended or his authorized representative, if any, at his last known place of business or residence; (c) by sending a communication to his e-mail address provided at the time of registration or as amended from time to time; (d) by making it available on the common portal; (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; (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 period normally taken by such post in transit unless the contrary is proved.’ The court must now consider whether the service through the common portal, as permitted by Section 169(1)(d), suffices in this case, or if the more traditional method of service outlined in Section 169(1)(b) should have been followed to meet the statutory and procedural requirements, ensuring the petitioner’s right to a fair process is upheld. This interpretation will have significant implications for the enforceability of the impugned order and the tax demands arising therefrom.

Download PDF:

For reference visit:

Read another case law:

GST Case Law: