GROUNDS OF WRIT-The Petitioner, aggrieved by the issuance of the SCN and subsequent Order, filed a Writ Petition. He argues that he was unaware of the SCN or the Order until he received the recovery notice. Furthermore, he claims that these documents were uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" section instead of the "Notices and Orders" tab on the portal. There was no guidance available on where to check for such documents, thereby depriving him of the Principles of Natural Justice and the opportunity to respond. In support of his claims, the Petitioner has cited various judicial precedents.
ORDER-The Court has ruled in favor of the Petitioner and has set aside the impugned order. It has directed the Petitioner to submit a reply within 30 days, while the second Respondent has been instructed to issue a fresh order after granting the Petitioner fair opportunity to he heard.
The Court acknowledged that the Petitioner was genuinely served due to the ambiguity of the system. Additionally, the Court distinguished between the 'non-service of notice and the 'lack of awareness or failure to notice the service of notice. While the former constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice, the latter does not necessarily have the same legal implications in every case.
GST Case Law-Ramanattu Motor Corp Versus State of Kerala
Citation-2025 TAXONATION 297 (KERALA)
Authors for the blog-Bhogavalli Mallikarjuna Gupta & Siddharth Surana
SUBSCRIBE GST E-LIBRARY (INDIA'S HIGHEST GST CASE LAW DATA)
FOR MORE UPDATE ON GST/ IT JOIN OUR FREE WHATSAPP GROUP BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK https://chat.whatsapp.com/C8VB6F6VHme3A061UDQKhj
