GST determination order quashed due to improper service of show cause notice on portal under section 73

Kerala HC set aside GST determination order under section 73 after finding improper service of show cause notice. The notice was posted in "Additional Notices and Orders" tab instead of regular "Notices and Orders" tab on GST portal, causing confusion. Petitioner remained unaware of proceedings until recovery intimation appeared. Court held the portal arrangement was vague and confusing, attributing lack of notice awareness to respondents' failure in effective service. This violated natural justice principles. HC granted petitioner 30 days to respond to notices. Petition allowed.

---

---

The Court considered the challenge to a show cause notice and consequential order issued under section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ("the GST Act"), imposing tax, interest, and penalty on a partnership firm. The petitioner contended that it was unaware of the proceedings until the intimation of the recovery proceeding was uploaded in the portal, as the notices were not served on the petitioner and were uploaded in a tab for 'Additional Notices and Orders' instead of the usual 'Notices and Orders' tab. The respondents argued that the common portal clearly distinguished between administrative matters and matters of adjudication, and the design of serving notices related to adjudication assessment in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab was appropriate.The Court analyzed the distinction between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice', noting that lack of knowledge attributable to the sender's default could violate natural justice principles. It observed that the petitioner's lack of knowledge of the notice was due to the vague arrangement of the portal, which did not clearly indicate where notices for determination would be posted. The Court referred to a decision of the Madras High Court in M/s. Sabari Infra Private Limited v. Asst. Commissioner, highlighting the complexity of the web portal design and lack of clear instructions regarding the posting of notices. It also mentioned a decision of the Delhi High Court in Anhad Impex and Others v. Assistant Commissioner, which emphasized the need for clear navigation instructions on the portal.Based on the above analysis, the Court concluded that the petitioner's lack of awareness of the notices was attributable to the respondents' failure to effectively serve the notices, leading to a violation of natural justice. Therefore, the Court set aside the order of determination and granted the petitioner an opportunity to respond to the notices within 30 days. If a response is filed within the specified time, the second respondent was directed to reconsider the matter after granting a hearing to the petitioner; otherwise, the respondent could proceed in accordance with the law.In summary, the Court found that the petitioner's lack of knowledge of the notices was due to the vague arrangement of the portal, leading to a violation of natural justice. As a result, the order of determination was set aside, and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to respond to the notices within a specified timeframe.

---