GST Notice Uploaded on View Additional Notices and Orders Section; HC Quashes Order Without Proper Service:

GST Notice Uploaded on View Additional Notices and Orders Section; HC Quashes Order Without Proper Service This current writ petition (W.P. No. 23629 of 2025) is being filed by a company named M/s. Chillz Engineering Private Limited, located in Egmore, Chennai. The petition was filed by the director of the company, Mr. Sadullah Khan, to challenge two specific actions taken by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2 (GST department). The actions are as follows:

• An assessment order dated 12.02.2025 (for the GST tax period April 2020–March 2021), and
• A rejection order dated 02.06.2025, which dismissed their request for rectification (correction) of the earlier assessment order.

Also Read

Bombay High Court Quashes GST Registration Cancellation Without Proper Notice

Claim of Petitioner The lawyer of the company, named Mr. S. Rajasekar, argued that: The GST department had uploaded notices and documents only on the GST portal (specifically under the section “View Additional Notices and Orders”).

• The company was unaware of these notices because it did not receive them directly by email, post, or any other method.
• In conclusion, they missed the opportunity to file their return reply or defence to the notices.
• As a result, the department, Deputy State Tax Officer-2, issued the assessment order without hearing the side of company.
• When the company received the assessment order, they filed a rectification request, which was rejected as well.
• The petitioner is now requesting the High Court to quash both the assessment order and rejection order, as they are aware of the notices sent on the GST portal, and award them a second chance to be heard.
• Also specified that they are suo moto agreed to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount as a condition of getting a fresh hearing opportunity.

Respondent's Response The Deputy State Tax Officer's Advocate, Mr. V. Prashanth Kumar, admitted the following:

• Yes, the notices were only uploaded on the GST portal and any other platforms.
• Yes, no personal hearing was given to the company before passing the assessment order.
• Since the petition is being filed by the company within the permitted time limit, a second chance can be given to the company on the condition that the company needs to pay 10% of the disputed tax.

Court's Observations Justice Krishnan Ramasamy made the following important observations:

• The court said that service of sending notices via the GST portal is sufficient as per the law.
• However, if the company did not respond to the notice timely manner, then the department must put in extra efforts to contact them. Methods such as post, email, or Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) could be used as alternative means, as mentioned in Section 169(1) of the GST Act.

Also Read

Eden Gardens NOT a Public Place: Big Win for Cricket Association of Bengal, High Court quashes Tax Demand

Need for Fair Hearing:

• Just uploading a notice and passing an ex parte (one-sided) order is not enough.
• If there’s no response from the taxpayer, the officer should not simply continue with the order; instead, they should ensure actual communication is made.
• Otherwise, it just leads to more legal cases, a waste of time, and inefficiency in the system.

Final Order of Court After hearing both sides, the Court gave the following clear directions:

• The court has quashed the Assessment Order passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer-2. Meaning the impugned assessment order dated 12.02.2025 is now cancelled.
• The petitioner has been awarded a fresh opportunity to answer the notice. The case is sent back to the Deputy State Tax Officer to reconsider everything fresh.
• However, the company is first required to pay 10% of the disputed tax amount within the time limit of 4 weeks from getting a copy of this court order.
• After paying the 10%, the company should file their reply and documents within 3 weeks.
• The tax officer must give 14 days' clear notice for a personal hearing and then decide the matter on its merits after fully listening to the company’s side.

The writ petition is now closed with these directions, and the related interim petitions were also closed.