In a noteworthy judgment, the Madras High Court clarified that effective communication, not mechanical formalities, is the core of fair tax proceedings.
🔹 Case: Vamana Engineering Company vs Assistant Commissioner (ST)
🔹 Date of Order: 3 June 2025
🔹 Law Involved: Section 73 & Section 169 of the CGST/TNGST Act, 201
Facts in Brief:
- The taxpayer’s GST registration was suspended at the time of SCN issuance.
- The SCN was only uploaded on the GST portal, which the taxpayer couldn’t access.
- As no reply was filed, an ex-parte assessment order confirming the demand was passed.
- The petitioner challenged this as a violation of natural justice.
Court’s Observations:
The High Court took a strong stand on procedural fairness:
- Uploading the SCN on the portal alone isn’t enough if the assessee cannot access it.
- Section 169 requires “effective service”, not just ticking procedural boxes.
- If no response is received via one mode, officers must explore alternate modes (like RPAD) to ensure the taxpayer gets a real opportunity to respond.
- The Court cautioned that mechanical compliance with formality undermines the fairness of tax administration and leads to unnecessary litigation.
Outcome:
The ex-parte order was quashed, and the matter was remanded for fresh proceedings. The petitioner must deposit 25% of the disputed amount and file a reply, followed by a personal hearing.
Why This Matters:
This judgment is a procedural wake-up call – Notices must reach the taxpayer effectively, especially when portal access is impaired. The ruling reinforces that principles of natural justice remain paramount, even under a tech-driven tax regime.
Try Our AI GST Tool for Free – Built for CAs & GST Professionals
- 14-day free trial – No credit card required
- Free setup, onboarding & support
- Dedicated CA success manager