Failure to Check Additional Notice Tab on GST Portal Not Fatal: Madras HC Grants Relief to Advertising Firm
The Court held that mere placement of the notice in a subsection of the GST portal without physical service did not amount to proper communication, and thus denied the petitioner a fair opportunity to respond
The Madras High Court has extended relief to an advertising and consulting firm after it failed to notice a show cause notice uploaded in the ‘Additional Notice’ tab on the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) portal. The Court held that such an inadvertent failure to check a specific tab on the portal cannot, by itself, justify the denial of a personal hearing and the confirmation of...
The Madras High Court has extended relief to an advertising and consulting firm after it failed to notice a show cause notice uploaded in the ‘Additional Notice’ tab on the GST ( Goods and Services Tax ) portal.
The Court held that such an inadvertent failure to check a specific tab on the portal cannot, by itself, justify the denial of a personal hearing and the confirmation of tax demands without proper representation.
The case titled Grandaddy v. Deputy Commissioner (ST) involved a writ petition filed by an advertising firm represented by its proprietor Mr. Balamurugan D. The petitioner has been registered under the GST since 2018.
A showcause notice dated 23.04.2024 was issued by the assessing officer and uploaded to the GST portal. However, the petitioner did not respond as it had failed to verify the ‘Additional Notice’ column, where the notice was placed.
Master GST Like a Pro – Before It’s Too Late - Click Here
This lapse resulted in an ex parte demand order being passed on 16.08.2024 by the second respondent (Assessing Officer). An appeal was subsequently filed on 20.12.2024, but was dismissed as time-barred by the Appellate Authority on 07.04.2025. Consequently, the petitioner approached the Madras High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking quashing of both orders and restoration of its right to be heard.
Justice N. Mala, presiding over the matter, acknowledged that the petitioner had already deposited 10% of the disputed tax at the appellate stage and had agreed to pay the remaining 15%. The Court took note of a previous similar decision.
The Court found merit in the petitioner’s case and held that since the notice was not communicated through any physical mode and the petitioner was not aware of it due to its placement in a subsection of the portal, it could not be presumed that the assessee had been properly served or given a fair opportunity to respond.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the demand order dated 16.08.2024 as well as the appellate order dated 07.04.2025, finding that the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity of hearing due to the procedural lapse. The matter was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration on merits.
The Assessing Officer was further instructed to issue a clear 14-day notice for a personal hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Additionally, since the impugned assessment order had been set aside, the Court directed the respondent authorities to immediately revoke the bank attachment that had been made pursuant to the now-quashed order.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
