2025 (1) TMI 125 - HC - GST

Landmark Ruling: Procedural Fairness Prevails as GST Tax Dispute Resolved Through Natural Justice Principles

M/s Om Traders Versus Deputy Commissioner State Tax And Another

The SC upheld the petitioner's right to procedural fairness in a GST tax dispute. The court found that non-service of a show cause notice violated natural ... Denial of opportunity to defend itself due to the alleged failure of service of a show cause notice under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 - Remedy of appeal having been denied on the ground of delay that was for want of knowledge - HELD THAT:- Division bench of this Court in the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and Others [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] has dealt with this aspect of the matter and it has been held that no material existed to reject the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that order impugned imposing liability of tax was not reflecting under tab 'view notices and orders' and so there remained a valid dispute as to non consideration/consideration of the various documents of returns available which could have been shown in reply to the show cause notice. The division bench was of the view that party under liability of tax in an ex parte order needs at-least an opportunity to put up his defense by submitting papers which may have led assessing officer to uphold the claim for exemption from tax liability. The division bench accordingly, instead of keeping the matter pending disposed off the same with a direction that impugned order may be taken as notice to enable the petitioner to submit his reply and thereafter assessing officer may have to pass a fresh order. The view taken by the division benches as cited before the Court are absolutely correct on the principle that nobody should be condemned unheard and legislature while incorporating the provision of notice/ show cause notice, intended so. Conclusion - Nobody should be condemned unheard and legislature while incorporating the provision of notice/ show cause notice, intended so. Effective communication of notices is essential for ensuring a fair hearing and that procedural lapses should not deprive parties of their right to appeal. It is directed that the order passed by the assessing officer dated 07.02.2024 shall be taken to be notice within the meaning of Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 to enable the petitioner to file his objections and place its documents before assessing officer/competent authority for its consideration - petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment are:Whether the petitioner was denied the opportunity to defend itself due to the alleged failure of service of a show cause notice under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.Whether the petitioner's appeal was unjustly rejected as time-barred due to lack of knowledge of the initial order.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue 1: Denial of Opportunity to Defend Due to Non-Service of NoticeRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework revolves around Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, which mandates the issuance of a show cause notice before determining tax liability. The court referenced previous judgments, including Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., which emphasized the necessity of serving notice to ensure a fair hearing.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the petitioner claimed no knowledge of the notice due to its absence from the GST Portal's 'view notices and orders' tab. The court reasoned that the absence of proper notice denied the petitioner a chance to present a defense, which is a fundamental principle of natural justice.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner argued that the notice was never effectively communicated, and the court found merit in this claim, supported by similar precedents where the lack of notice was deemed a valid defense.Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principles of natural justice, the court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to a fair opportunity to present its case, which was not afforded due to the non-service of notice.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's argument that the notice was available on the portal was insufficient to counter the petitioner's claim of non-receipt. The court sided with the petitioner, emphasizing the necessity of clear and effective communication of notices.Conclusions: The court concluded that the order dated 07.02.2024 should be treated as a notice under Section 73, allowing the petitioner to submit objections and relevant documents.Issue 2: Rejection of Appeal as Time-BarredRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The statutory appeal process under the GST Act requires timely filing. However, the court considered precedents where lack of notice justified delays in filing appeals.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court acknowledged that the petitioner's delay in filing the appeal was due to lack of knowledge of the initial order. It referenced similar cases where courts allowed appeals despite delays caused by procedural lapses.Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's immediate action upon learning of the order demonstrated a lack of intentional delay. The court found the rejection of the appeal as time-barred to be unjust under these circumstances.Application of Law to Facts: The court applied equitable principles, recognizing that procedural fairness requires allowing the petitioner to file an appeal when the delay is attributable to non-service of notice.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The respondent's stance on strict adherence to timelines was overridden by the court's focus on fairness and the petitioner's right to be heard.Conclusions: The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to submit its objections and documents, effectively granting an extension to file an appeal.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSPreserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: 'Nobody should be condemned unheard and legislature while incorporating the provision of notice/ show cause notice, intended so.'Core Principles Established: The judgment reinforced the principle that effective communication of notices is essential for ensuring a fair hearing and that procedural lapses should not deprive parties of their right to appeal.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court determined that the order dated 07.02.2024 should be treated as a notice, allowing the petitioner to file objections and documents. The petitioner was granted eight weeks to submit its reply, and the assessing officer was directed to reconsider the case within four weeks thereafter.In conclusion, the court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the need to uphold the principles of natural justice by ensuring parties receive proper notice and an opportunity to be heard before determining tax liabilities.