High Court Quashes GST Order: Upholds Right to Be Heard, Orders Fresh Assessment

In the current case, the petitioner is M/s. Sri Pannariamman Traders, represented by its proprietor L. Pavadai, located in Cuddalore, Tamil Nadu, and the respondent is the State Tax Officer. The petitioner has filed a Writ Petition (WP No. 23360 of 2025) against the State Tax Officer (ST), Panruti (Town) Assessment Circle. Through the writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the tax assessment order dated December 03, 2024, passed under GSTIN 33DINPP0802D1ZM/2022-23.

What the Petitioner Claimed:

The lawyer of the petitioner, named Mr. P.V. Sudakar, told the court that:

• The State Tax Officer (respondent) uploaded all notices and communications only under the “View Additional Notices and Orders” section of the GST portal.
• The petitioner was not aware about these notices issued by the tax officer and hence was not able to reply to them.
• In conclusion, the State Tax Officer issued an ex parte order against the petitioner (without hearing the petitioner).
• The petitioner was not heard personally, which is a general right before passing any final order.
• Now, the petitioner is ready to pay 25% of the dispute tax amount. Hence, requesting the court to quash the order and grant an opportunity to present their side.

What Did Government’s Advocate Say?

• The lawyer of the government, named Ms. P. Selvi, confirmed:
• The notices were only uploaded on the online portal of GST.
• However, she also agreed to the point that no personal hearing opportunity was given to the respondent before issuing the final order.
• Additionally, she supported the request to cancel the order and sending the matter back for fresh consideration. However, if the petitioner successfully submits the 25% disputed amount.

What Did Judge Observe?

The judge, Justice Krishnan Ramasamy, has observed the following:

• It is true, notices uploaded on the GST portal are considered a valid way of sending notices; however, repeated notices were sent to the petitioner, and no response was sent in return.
• Additionally, respondent could have tried another way of uploading notices as permitted under Section 169 of the GST Act, instead of trying a single way again and again. For example, Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD).
• According to the judge, just uploading notices and passing orders without proper communication defeats the purpose of the law and leads to more unnecessary court cases. Hence, officers should try sending notices via other ways too when there is no response from taxpayers; this is necessary to ensure fairness.

Final Court’s Decision

Finally, the court made the following decisions:

• The impugned order dated 03.12.2024 is quashed.
• The case is sent back to the tax officer for a fresh review on the condition that the petitioner must pay 25% of the disputed tax within four weeks from the date they receive a copy of this order.
• After making the payment, the petitioner must submit their reply/objection and documents within three weeks.

Then the tax officer must:

• Give at least 14 days’ notice and fix a date for a personal hearing.
• Listen to the petitioner and then pass a fresh order on merits and in line with the law.

Conclusion:

The court protected the petitioner’s right to be heard and held that uploading notices online is not enough if the taxpayer is unaware. It stressed the importance of fair communication and ordered the case to be reopened, giving the petitioner one more chance, provided they pay 25% of the disputed tax.