Pushpam Reality Vs. State Tax Officer, Hosur

By this common order, all three Writ Petitions are being disposed of. The petitioners have challenged the impugned assessment orders dated 19.03.2021 in W.P.No.27651 of 2021, dated 30.12.2020 in W.P.No.27654 of 2021, and dated 10.03.2021 in W.P.No.27657 of 2021. Additionally, the petitioners have contested the subsequent recovery proceedings issued as a consequence of these assessment orders. The learned counsel for the petitioners argues that these impugned assessment orders were passed either without proper service of Show Cause Notices or without providing an adequate opportunity for the petitioners to respond to the Show Cause Notices. It is therefore submitted that the impugned orders have been issued in violation of the principles of natural justice. Opposing the petitioners’ prayer, the learned Government Advocate representing the respondents asserts that the notices were uploaded on the State Government’s web portal, tngst.cid.tn.gov.in. Furthermore, the learned Government Advocate emphasizes that these notices and other relevant orders are uploaded to the aforementioned portal and are auto-populated in the GST web portal maintained by the Central Government. Therefore, the respondents argue that the petitioners had ample opportunity to access and respond to the notices. The petitioners, however, maintain that they were not given proper notice or adequate time to prepare their responses, thus alleging a breach of natural justice. This contention is crucial as it underscores the importance of ensuring due process in tax assessment proceedings. The crux of the petitioners’ argument is that the failure to serve the Show Cause Notices correctly or to provide sufficient opportunity to respond undermines the legitimacy of the assessment orders and the subsequent recovery actions. As such, the petitioners are seeking the quashing of the impugned assessment orders and the associated recovery proceedings, citing procedural lapses and the resultant prejudice against their interests. The court’s decision in these writ petitions will hinge on whether it finds that the principles of natural justice were indeed violated in the issuance of the impugned assessment orders and if the procedural deficiencies alleged by the petitioners warrant the relief sought.

The petitioners cannot argue that the Show Cause Notices were not served. The learned Government Advocate for the respondents contends that once the notices are auto-uploaded, the information becomes available on the dashboards of the assessees and registrants. Therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to claim that neither the Show Cause Notices nor the impugned orders were communicated to them. Additionally, the learned Government Advocate submits that the impugned orders can be challenged before the appellate authority under Section 107 of the respective GST enactments, making these Writ Petitions devoid of merit. Furthermore, the learned Government Advocate draws attention to Section 169 of the respective GST enactments, which stipulates that any one of the methods of service of notices is sufficient. In this regard, reference is made to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Softouch Health Care Private Ltd. Vs. The State Tax Officer, 1st Circle, Department of State GST and Others, rendered in W.P. (C) No.15297 of 2020 on 29.09.2020 and in R.P.No.747 of 2020 in W.P. (C) No.15297 of 2020 on 12.11.2020, which supports this view. She, therefore, prays for the dismissal of these Writ Petitions. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and perusing the records, it becomes clear that Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Section 169 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, are identical. These sections outline the methods by which any decision, order, summons, notice, or other communication under the Act or the rules made thereunder shall be served. According to Section 169(1), such communications can be served by giving or tendering it directly or through a messenger, including a courier, to the addressee, the taxable person, or their manager, authorized representative, advocate, or tax practitioner holding authority to appear in the proceedings on behalf of the taxable person, or to a person regularly employed by them in connection with the business, or to any adult member of the family residing with the taxable person. This provision ensures that the service of notices is adequately covered, negating the petitioners’ claims of non-service. The arguments presented by the respondents underscore that the procedural requirements for serving notices were met, and the petitioners were duly informed through the prescribed channels. Consequently, the court is inclined to consider that the procedural compliance as per Section 169 suffices, and the petitioners’ assertions of non-receipt of notices and impugned orders do not hold substantial merit. This comprehensive approach, supported by the Kerala High Court’s decisions and the statutory provisions, reinforces the validity of the respondents’ position, thus favoring the dismissal of the Writ Petitions.

is not clear whether the petitioners were adequately informed. Section 169 provides multiple methods for serving notices, including by registered post or speed post with acknowledgment due to the intended person or their authorized representative at their last known business or residence address; by email communication to the address provided during registration or as amended; by making it available on the common portal; by publication in a newspaper circulating in the locality where the person is last known to have resided, conducted business, or worked; or if none of these methods are practicable, by affixing it in a conspicuous place at the person’s last known business or residence, or if still impracticable, by affixing a copy on the notice board of the concerned officer’s or authority’s office. Subsection (2) of Section 169 clarifies that every decision, order, summons, notice, or communication is deemed served on the date it is tendered, published, or affixed as described. Furthermore, subsection (3) states that when such communication is sent by registered or speed post, it is presumed received by the addressee at the end of the normal transit period unless proven otherwise.

In light of these provisions, while the respondents assert that notices were served by uploading them on the State Government’s web portal, it is essential to verify if these notices were auto-populated and accessible to the petitioners on the GST portal. Without proper confirmation of this auto-population, the adequacy of service remains questionable. The petitioners argue that they were not given proper service of Show Cause Notices or adequate opportunity to reply, thus alleging a violation of natural justice principles. They also contend that they should have been notified through a method ensuring direct communication and acknowledgment of receipt. The respondents maintain that the statutory requirements were met and suggest that the petitioners have recourse to appeal under Section 107 of the GST enactments. They argue that these petitions are devoid of merit based on procedural compliance.

The court must evaluate whether the methods stipulated in Section 169 were followed correctly and whether the petitioners’ claims of inadequate service and opportunity hold merit. The decisions referenced from other High Courts, such as the Kerala High Court in Softouch Health Care Private Ltd. and similar cases, provide precedents supporting the respondents’ stance on adequate service through multiple channels, including electronic means and physical affixation. However, the specific circumstances of each case must be considered to ensure compliance with natural justice principles. The court’s analysis will focus on whether the procedural safeguards were observed in this instance, ensuring that the petitioners were properly notified and given a fair opportunity to respond, thereby upholding the integrity of the legal process and the rights of the parties involved.

Download PDF:

For reference visit:

Read another case law:

GST Case Law: