Send RPAD Reminders If No Reply Received After Repeated Uploading Of Notices In GST Portal: Madras High Court Tells Revenue

The Madras High Court stated that if the taxpayer is not at all participating in the proceedings, even after repeated uploading of notices and reminders in GST portal, the Department should have resorted to other mode of service, viz., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), so that considerable time of officers, assessee and the Court could be saved. The court extensively referred to the provisions of the Information Technology Act and concluded, while service through portal is “sufficient” service, it is not “effective" service”. The Bench of Justice Krishnan Ramasamy stated that “once if no response was received for the notices, viz., ASMT-10, DRC-01A, DRC-01, etc., which were uploaded in the common portal by the department, atleast they have to send the subsequent reminders by way of RPAD. If anyone notice is received by the assessee, he cannot make a plea that they were unaware of the notices, which were uploaded in the common portal.” In this case, the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice which was uploaded in GST portal. The case of the assessee is that the department had sent the show cause notices vide the mode of service as provided in Section 169(1)(d) of the GST Act, i.e., making it available in portal and they had not even tried any other alternative modes of services as mandated therein. According to the assessee, if the department had adopted other modes of services, especially, the mode, which was prescribed in Section 169(1)(b) of the GST Act, i.e., Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), definitely, the issue of passing the ex parte impugned order would not arise and in such case, the department would have passed a detailed speaking order, so that, the precious time of the Assessees and the Officers would have been saved. The department submitted that the provisions of Section 169 of the GST Act provide different modes of services, which are alternative to one another and hence, it would be sufficient if any one of the modes of services is followed by the department. The bench opined that the act of the department will only be considered as an empty formality, by which no useful purpose was achieved. The bench held that the service effected by the department is sufficient but not effective. If the service of notices made by the department was sufficient as well as effective, for example, if they adopted the RPAD mode of service or any other modes as stated in Section 169 of the GST Act, the notices were deemed to be served to the Assessees. At any cost, the sending of notices by RPAD cannot be dispensed since the Statute provides it as one of the alternative modes of services to the assessee. Whenever a service is not effective, certainly, the department has to follow the alternative modes of service, added the bench. The bench observed that the assessees were unaware of the notices the notices uploaded by the department in the common portal. In such case, the fault is on both the assessee and the department. In view of the above, the bench set aside the impugned orders and gave another opportunity to the assessee to file a reply. Case Title: M/s. Axiom Gen Nxt India Private Limited v. Commercial State Tax OfficerCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 150 Case Number: W.P.No.1114 of 2025 Counsel for Petitioner/ Assessee: Joseph Prabhakar, S. Durairaj, G. Natarajan, K. Sankaranarayan, S. Sathyanarayan, N.V. Balaji & V. Sundaresan Counsel for Respondent/ Department: P.S. Raman, U. Baranidharan, V. Prashanth Kiran, Amirta Poonkodi Dinakaran, T.N.C. Kaushik, C. Harsha Raj, K.Vasanthamala, C. Harsha Raj Click Here To Read/Download The Order

Send RPAD Reminders If No Reply Received After Repeated Uploading Of Notices In GST Portal: Madras High Court Tells Revenue

Mehak Dhiman

Tags