Attachment order quashed after show cause notice under Section 73 CGST Act uploaded in wrong portal section

Calcutta HC quashed an attachment order dated 21st February 2024 in a case involving a show cause notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act. The petitioner challenged the SCN and adjudication order, claiming lack of knowledge as the notice was uploaded in the "view additional notices and orders" section rather than the standard "view notices and orders" section of the portal. While the court found the petitioner had opportunity to respond and failed to file any response or seek extension, it acknowledged potential confusion due to the pre-redesigned dashboard. The court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority and disposed of the petition by quashing the attachment order.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to show cause notice and adjudication order under WBGST/CGST Act, 2017; Validity of notice uploaded in portal's "view additional notices and orders" section; Compliance with statutory provisions regarding response time; Alternative remedy available to approach appellate authority.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and an adjudication order issued under the WBGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner, a registered taxpayer, claimed lack of knowledge about the proceedings until an attachment order was issued to the petitioner's bank account. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was not uploaded in the correct section of the portal, depriving them of the opportunity to respond. The respondent contended that the petitioner had ample time to respond and could have done so even after the specified period. The respondent also stated that the uploading of notices on the portal was beyond their control, and the petitioner had an alternate remedy to approach the appellate authority.

The court noted that the show cause notice was not uploaded in the designated "view notices and orders" section of the portal but in the "view additional notices and orders" section. While the statutory provision allowed 30 days to respond to such notices, the petitioner did not file any response or seek an extension. The court acknowledged the confusion caused by the portal's redesign but emphasized that the petitioner had the opportunity to respond. The court directed the petitioner to approach the appellate authority within six weeks with an application for condonation of delay, ensuring compliance with pre-deposit provisions.

The court found that the judgments cited by the petitioner were factually distinguishable and did not support their case. It was concluded that the uploading of notices in the "view additional notices and orders" section did not invalidate the service of notice under the Act. The court quashed the order of attachment issued on February 21, 2024. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and all parties were instructed to act based on the server copy of the court's order downloaded from the official website.

---