Electronic Service of Show Cause Notice Under CGST Rules Upheld, Petitioner's Challenge Dismissed with Costs

HC dismissed petitioner's writ petition challenging electronic service of show cause notice under CGST Rules. Court found petitioner's request an attempt to manipulate legal process and delay proceedings. The HC rejected the electronic service challenge, imposed Rs. 50,000 costs on petitioner, and deemed the petition an abuse of legal process.

---

---

Issues:
Petitioner's request for issuance of show cause notice electronically under Rule 142 (1) (a) of the CGST/HGST Rules, 2017.

Analysis:
The petitioner, in this case, had previously filed two writ petitions concerning the same cause of action. The first writ petition, CWP-9948-2024, was filed against a show cause notice issued under Section 122 of the CGST Act, 2017, which is still pending consideration. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another writ petition, CWP-11953-2024, challenging a show cause notice issued under Section 74 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, which was dismissed by the High Court and later by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the petitioner to file replies to the show cause notices. The present writ petition, however, does not seek to quash the show cause notice but requests for electronic issuance of the notice as per Rule 142 (1) (a) of the Rules.

The petitioner argued for the electronic issuance of the show cause notice and the ability to file replies electronically, citing Rule 142 (1) (a) of the CGST/HGST Rules, 2017. On the other hand, the revenue contended that there is no prohibition on issuing show cause notices by e-mail and that the absence of electronic issuance does not invalidate the notice. The revenue also accused the petitioner of attempting to delay the proceedings related to the show cause notice under Section 74 (1) of the CGST Act, 2017, and highlighted that granting the petitioner's request would necessitate issuing a fresh notice electronically, resetting the time limitation.

The Court refused to grant the petitioner's request, emphasizing that the law cannot be manipulated for the convenience of individuals suspected of fraudulent activities. The Court noted that the petitioner had not availed the opportunity to file replies as directed by the Supreme Court but instead filed the present writ petition. Consequently, the Court deemed the filing of the present writ petition as an abuse of the legal process and dismissed it, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner to be paid to the CGST Authorities. Any pending applications were also disposed of by the Court.

---