2024 (5) TMI 974 - HC - GST

Complex GST Portal Notice Invalidated: Procedural Fairness Mandates Clear Communication and Opportunity to Respond

M/s. ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited Versus Union of India And Ors.

HC ruled that the GST portal's complex notice architecture impeded proper communication of a Show Cause Notice. The court set aside the impugned order, ... Violation of principles of natural justice - service of SCN - uploading of a notice on the portal is sufficient compliance with regard to intimation to the taxpayer or not - Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - HELD THAT:- Petitioner has made out a case that petitioner has missed out the receipt of the notice and accordingly could not respondent to the Show Cause Notice. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order categorically records that the taxpayer has not replied or appeared in person. Consequently, petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated. The impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off. Issues involved: Impugned order u/s 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Non-receipt of Show Cause Notice; Compliance with Section 169 of the CGST Act; Design of the GST portal for notices.In the judgment, the petitioner challenged an order passed u/s 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, due to non-receipt of a Show Cause Notice dated 08.12.2023. The petitioner argued that the notice was not easily accessible on the portal, as it was categorized under 'Additional Notices', leading to a failure in responding. The respondent contended that uploading the notice on the portal was sufficient compliance u/s 169 of the Act.The court referred to a judgment of the Madras High Court in a similar case, highlighting the issue of notices being placed under different headings on the portal. The petitioner's counsel pointed out that the notice was not in the correct place for easy visibility, resulting in the petitioner missing it and not responding. The court acknowledged the complexity of the portal's architecture causing such oversights.Another judgment by the Madras High Court mentioned a redesign of the portal to consolidate the 'View Notices' and 'View Additional Notices' tabs under one heading, addressing the issue raised in the present case. The court concluded that the petitioner had indeed missed receiving the notice, justifying the need for granting an opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and for its re-adjudication.Therefore, the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 was set aside, and the respondent was directed to allow the petitioner to file a response to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days. The Proper Officer was instructed to adjudicate the notice within four weeks thereafter, with the petitioner also being granted a personal hearing. The petition was disposed of accordingly.