2025 (5) TMI 1682 - HC - GST

Legal Notice Invalidated: Procedural Defects Compromise Natural Justice in GST Communication Protocol

Etemad Cargo Through Its Surviving Partner Umesh Chandra Mishra Versus Assistant Commissioner, Ward 206, Zone 11, Delhi

HC analyzed the validity of a GST show cause notice uploaded on an obscure portal tab. The court found the notice's communication method procedurally ... Implications of the SCNs being visible under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal, rather than the 'Notices' tab - not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner - No opportunity of personal hearing - absence of a reply on behalf of the Petitioner - Violation of Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ has been made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN was issued on 2nd November, 2020 and the same was not brought to the notice of the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN having been filed by the Petitioner, following the decision of this Court in Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) [2025 (3) TMI 1308 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The Petitioner is granted time till 10th July 2025, to file the reply to SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner. The reply filed by the Petitioner to the SCN along with the submissions made in the personal hearing proceedings shall be duly considered by the Adjudicating Authority and fresh order with respect to the SCN shall be passed accordingly. Access to the GST Portal, if not already available, shall be ensured to be provided to the Petitioner to enable filing of reply as also access to the notices and related documents. Petition is disposed of in these terms. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Court include:(a) Whether the issuance and communication of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 2nd November 2020, uploaded under the 'Additional Notices Tab' on the GST portal, complied with principles of natural justice and provided effective notice to the Petitioner.(b) Whether the impugned order dated 9th December 2020, passed without a personal hearing or any reply from the Petitioner, violated the Petitioner's right to be heard under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India.(c) Whether the procedural irregularities in issuing notices through the 'Additional Notices Tab' on the GST portal warranted quashing of the impugned order and remand for fresh adjudication.(d) The adequacy and legality of the departmental procedure in ensuring that notices and hearing opportunities are communicated effectively to the taxpayer.(e) The applicability and precedential value of prior decisions of the Court addressing similar issues of notice and hearing in GST proceedings.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a) & (c): Validity and Effectiveness of Communication of Show Cause Notice via 'Additional Notices Tab'The Court examined whether uploading the SCN on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices Tab' constituted valid service of notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner contended that the SCN and a reminder notice dated 18th August 2020 were uploaded on this 'Additional Notices Tab', which was not readily visible or accessible to the Petitioner, resulting in non-receipt of the notices.The Court referred to precedents where similar issues arose. In particular, the Court relied on its earlier judgments in W.P.(C) 13727/2024 and other connected cases where notices uploaded under the 'Additional Notices Tab' were held insufficient for effective communication. The Court noted that prior to 16th January 2024, the 'Additional Notices Tab' was not prominently placed or clearly visible on the GST portal, which led to inadvertent non-receipt of notices by taxpayers.In these precedents, the Court emphasized that the fundamental principle of natural justice requires that a notice must be brought to the actual knowledge of the party concerned. Mere uploading in a less accessible tab without any additional communication (such as email or SMS alerts) failed to satisfy this requirement. The Court observed that the GST portal was subsequently amended to place the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab adjacent to the 'Notices & Orders' tab to enhance visibility, but such changes post-dated the issuance of the SCN in the present case.The Court concluded that the method of service employed in the present case was inadequate and did not meet the standards of effective communication required for statutory notices. This procedural lapse warranted setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after proper notice.Issue (b): Violation of Right to be Heard and Principles of Natural JusticeThe Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without affording a personal hearing or considering any reply from the Petitioner, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and the statutory right to be heard under Article 226 of the Constitution.The Court acknowledged that the absence of a personal hearing and the passing of an order in default, without the Petitioner's knowledge or opportunity to respond, was a serious procedural infirmity. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that an adjudicating authority must provide a reasonable opportunity to the affected party to present its case before passing an adverse order.The Court drew support from earlier decisions where similar default orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded to ensure that the Petitioner was given an opportunity to file replies and be heard in person. The Court emphasized that the right to be heard is a fundamental facet of fair procedure and must be scrupulously observed in tax adjudications.Issue (d): Adequacy of Departmental Procedure for Communication and HearingThe Court directed that henceforth, hearing notices should not be merely uploaded on the portal but must also be communicated through email and mobile phone to the Petitioner. This was to ensure that the Petitioner receives actual notice and can participate meaningfully in the proceedings.The Court mandated that the Petitioner's email ID and mobile number be used for communication of hearing notices. It further directed that access to the GST portal be ensured to the Petitioner to enable filing of replies and access to all notices and related documents.This direction was in line with the Court's concern to uphold procedural fairness and transparency in tax proceedings, ensuring that technological means of communication do not become barriers to justice.Issue (e): Precedential Value of Prior DecisionsThe Court relied heavily on its own prior decisions, notably W.P.(C) 13727/2024 and cases such as M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer, which dealt with the issue of notice under GST laws and the adequacy of communication via the GST portal.These precedents established that notices uploaded under 'Additional Notices Tab' without effective communication do not constitute valid service. The Court followed these precedents to maintain consistency and uphold the principles of natural justice.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held:'There is no doubt that after 16th January 2024, changes have been made to the GST portal and the 'Additional Notices Tab' has been made visible. However, in the present case, the SCN was issued on 2nd November, 2020 and the same was not brought to the notice of the Petitioner. Under such circumstances, considering the fact that the Petitioner did not get a proper opportunity to be heard and no reply to the SCN having been filed by the Petitioner, following the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) 13727/2024, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority.'The Court set aside the impugned order dated 9th December 2020 and the demand orders dated 23rd April 2024 and 5th December 2023, directing the Petitioner to file replies within a stipulated time and granting an opportunity for personal hearing.The Court further ordered:'The hearing notices shall now not be merely uploaded on the portal but shall also be e-mailed to the Petitioner and upon the hearing notice being received, the Petitioner would appear before the Department and make its submissions. The show cause notices shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.'Core principles established include:Effective communication of statutory notices is essential for compliance with principles of natural justice.Uploading notices in a less accessible or non-prominent section of an electronic portal, without additional communication, is insufficient to constitute valid service.Taxpayers must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard, including a personal hearing, before adverse orders are passed.Technological platforms used by tax authorities must ensure transparency and accessibility to avoid procedural unfairness.The Court preserved the parties' rights and remedies and mandated access to the GST portal for the Petitioner to facilitate compliance and participation in the proceedings.