Facts of the Case

R.Rajkumar challenged an order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, West Veli Street Assessment Circle, Madurai, under Rule 142B read with Rule 88C of the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Tax Rules, for financial year 2024-25. The order referred to a notice issued in Form GST DRC-01B dated 17.03.2025, but the petitioner contended that although uploaded on the web portal, the notice remained inaccessible even as of the date of hearing. The Department pointed instead to a subsequent notice in Form GST DRC-01 dated 05.05.2025, to which the petitioner had already replied the same day.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an order can validly rest on a Rule 88C notice that was uploaded but never actually accessible to the taxpayer.
  2. Whether a later notice and reply, both post-dating the impugned order, could retrospectively cure the defect.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • Although the DRC-01B notice dated 17.03.2025 was purportedly uploaded on the web portal, it remained inaccessible even on the date of hearing, depriving the petitioner of any real opportunity to respond before the order was passed.

Respondent's Arguments

  • A notice in Form GST DRC-01 was issued on 05.05.2025, to which the petitioner had submitted a reply on the same day, suggesting adequate notice and response had already occurred.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court rejected the Department's reliance on the 05.05.2025 notice and reply, observing that both post-dated the impugned order of 26.03.2025 and therefore could not retrospectively validate it.
  • Since the foundational DRC-01B notice remained inaccessible, the Court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter, directing the respondent to serve a copy of the 17.03.2025 notice by enabling the portal, or manually in case of technical glitches, within 30 days.
  • The petitioner was allowed 30 days thereafter to file a reply, with final orders to be passed within two months following that.

Important Clarification

  • A notice merely uploaded on the GST portal but rendered practically inaccessible to the taxpayer does not satisfy the requirements of natural justice, and an order passed relying on such a notice is liable to be quashed.
  • A subsequent, unrelated notice and reply occurring after the impugned order cannot cure a pre-existing defect in service for that order.

Sections Involved

  • Rule 88C, CGST/TNGST Rules, 2017 – deals with intimation of differences in liability reported between GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B.
  • Rule 142B, CGST/TNGST Rules, 2017 – procedure for issuing notice and order in respect of such liability differences, using Form GST DRC-01B.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee. The order was quashed for defective access to the underlying notice, with the matter remanded for proper service and a fresh reply opportunity.

Case Details

Court: Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Case No.: W.P(MD) No.22992 of 2025 and W.M.P(MD) No.18072 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Saravanan
Date of Order: 25.08.2025

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.