GST Order Uploaded But Never Notified — Court Gives Taxpayer a Second Chance

Get the full picture - access the original judgement of the court order here

Case Name

Mrs. Nirmala Menon, Proprietrix of M/s. Daksh Auto v. The Assistant Commissioner (ST), Hosur (North) – II

Court Name: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Case No.: W.P. No. 24634 of 2022 and WMP Nos. 23600 & 23603 of 2022

Date: 15th September 2022

Before: Dr. Justice Anita Sumanth

Key Takeaways

1. Mere uploading on the GST portal is NOT enough notice — If the taxpayer is not separately informed about an order being uploaded, they cannot be expected to know about it.

2. Coercive recovery was the first notice — The petitioner only came to know about the order when the department started recovering the demand forcibly. This is a serious procedural concern.

3. Writ petition dismissed, but with liberty — The court didn’t entertain the writ petition on merits, but it was kind enough to give the petitioner time to file a proper statutory appeal.

4. Limitation period can be condoned in genuine cases — The court directed that if the appeal is filed within 2 weeks, it shall be taken on file without reference to limitation — meaning the delay will be forgiven.

5. Pre-deposit condition still applies — Even though the limitation was waived, the petitioner still has to comply with all other statutory conditions, including making the mandatory pre-deposit for filing the appeal.

Issue

The central question here is:

Can a taxpayer be denied the right to appeal a GST order simply because the statutory time limit expired, when the taxpayer was never properly informed about the order being passed?

In other words — is uploading an order on the GST portal, without any separate intimation to the taxpayer, sufficient notice?

Facts

• Who is the petitioner? Mrs. Nirmala Menon, who runs a business called M/s. Daksh Auto in Hosur, Tamil Nadu. She is the proprietrix of this auto business.

• What order is being challenged? An order dated 28.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (ST), Hosur (North) – II, related to GST No. 33ABVPM1127G1ZP/2018-19.

• How did she find out about the order? Here’s the surprising part — she claims she was never informed about the order. The order was uploaded on the GST portal, but no separate intimation was given to her. She only came to know about it when the tax department started coercive recovery proceedings to collect the demand.

• Why did she file a Writ Petition? Normally, she should have filed a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. But by the time she found out about the order, the time limit for filing the appeal had already expired. So she approached the High Court directly through a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Side (Mrs. Nirmala Menon):

• She wanted to challenge the order dated 28.01.2022 through a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017.
• She filed the Writ Petition only because the statutory time limit had expired by the time she became aware of the order.
• She argued that the order was uploaded on the portal but she was never intimated about such uploading through any means.
• She essentially came to know about the order only when coercive recovery action was initiated against her.

Respondent’s Side (Assistant Commissioner):

• The learned Additional Government Pleader, Mr. TNC Kaushik, accepted notice and was ready to proceed.
• Importantly, the respondent did not object to the petitioner’s request to file a statutory appeal. This is a significant point — the department essentially agreed to let her file the appeal

Key Legal Precedents

This judgment is quite brief and does not cite any specific case law precedents. However, it does reference the following key legal provisions:

1. Article 226 of the Constitution of India — This is the provision under which the Writ Petition was filed. It gives High Courts the power to issue writs (like Certiorari) to enforce fundamental rights or for other purposes. The petitioner used this to directly approach the High Court.

2. Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 — This is the statutory provision for filing an appeal against a GST order. The petitioner’s counsel candidly admitted that the proper remedy was to file an appeal under this section, and that the Writ Petition was filed only because the time limit had expired.

Note: No specific judicial precedents (case laws) were cited in this judgment. The court resolved the matter on a practical and equitable basis, given the facts and the respondent’s non-objection.

Judgment

• The Writ Petition was dismissed — meaning the court did not entertain the challenge to the order through the writ route.

• However, it was dismissed “with liberty” — which means the petitioner was given the freedom to pursue the proper legal remedy.

• The court granted 2 weeks from 15.09.2022 to the petitioner to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act, 2017.

• The court directed that if the appeal is filed within those 2 weeks, it shall be taken on file without reference to limitation — meaning the delay in filing will be condoned.

• However, the petitioner must still comply with all other statutory conditions, including the mandatory pre-deposit requirement for filing the appeal.

• No costs were awarded to either party.

• The connected Miscellaneous Petitions (WMP Nos. 23600 & 23603 of 2022) were also closed.

FAQs

Q1: Why did the petitioner go to the High Court instead of filing an appeal directly?

Because by the time she found out about the GST order (through coercive recovery action), the time limit to file a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu GST Act had already expired. So she had no choice but to approach the High Court.

Q2: Did the petitioner win or lose?

Technically, the Writ Petition was dismissed. But practically, she got what she needed — the court gave her 2 weeks to file a proper appeal, and the delay in filing will be forgiven. So it’s a partial win in a practical sense.

Q3: What is “pre-deposit” and why does it still apply?

Pre-deposit is a mandatory requirement under GST law where a taxpayer has to deposit a certain percentage of the disputed tax amount before their appeal can be heard. Even though the court waived the limitation issue, it made clear that this financial condition still has to be met.

Q4: Is uploading an order on the GST portal enough to notify a taxpayer?

Based on the facts of this case, the court implicitly acknowledged that mere uploading on the portal — without any separate intimation — may not be sufficient notice, especially when the taxpayer claims they were unaware. This is an important practical takeaway for GST taxpayers.

Q5: What should GST taxpayers learn from this case?

Always keep a close watch on your GST portal for any orders or notices. If you receive any coercive recovery notice, immediately check if there’s an underlying order you may have missed. And if the appeal deadline has passed, you may still be able to approach the High Court for relief, as was done here.

Q6: What happens next in this case?

The petitioner needs to file a statutory appeal within 2 weeks of 15.09.2022 (i.e., by around 29.09.2022), along with the required pre-deposit. If she does so, the appeal will be heard on its merits by the appellate authority.

Mr.TNC.Kaushik, learned Additional Government Pleader accepts notice

for the respondent and is armed with instructions to proceed with the matter finally even at this juncture, at the stage of admission.

2. The learned counsel candidly requests that the petitioner wishes to

challenge order dated 28.01.2022 by way of statutory appeal under Section 107 of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, has filed this Writ Petition only for the reason that the statutory time limit had expired by the time the petitioner came to be aware of the order.

3. To be noted, that the order is stated to have uploaded on the website of

the portal, but the petitioner has not been intimated about such uploading by any means. It is only when coercive recovery was taken to recover the demand under the order that the petitioner states that it came to be aware of the impugned order having come to be passed.

4. In such circumstances and in view of there being no objection by

Mr. Kaushik to the request of the petitioner to file a statutory appeal, time of two (2) weeks from today is granted to the petitioner to file an appeal. Appeal, if filed within the time as granted above, shall be taken on file without reference to limitation, but ensuring compliance with all other statutory conditions, including pre-deposit.

5. This Writ Petition stands dismissed, though with liberty. No costs.

Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

15.09.2022