Order set aside; case remanded for fresh hearing; SCN valid despite portal tab; replies to be filed in 30 days

The HC set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh adjudication. The Court held that the SCN issued on 21st May 2024 and the subsequent reminder could not be invalidated solely because they were uploaded under the 'Additional Notices Tab' on the GST portal. However, since the impugned notifications underlying the SCN are under challenge before the SC, and the order was passed without considering the petitioner's reply, the matter warranted reconsideration. The petitioner was directed to file replies within thirty days, and future hearing notices must be emailed in addition to portal upload. The petition was disposed by remand for adjudication in accordance with law.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the impugned Show Cause Notice (SCN) and consequent order were validly issued and passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.Whether the impugned Notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (GST Act) extending time limits for adjudication are valid and in compliance with statutory procedure.Whether the uploading of SCNs and hearing notices under the 'Additional Notices Tab' on the GST portal without direct communication constitutes adequate service and opportunity to reply.Whether the adjudication orders passed ex-parte due to non-filing of replies and absence of personal hearings are legally sustainable.What reliefs are appropriate pending final adjudication on the validity of the impugned notifications by the Supreme Court.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The impugned order passed without providing an opportunity to reply or personal hearing is set aside, as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to be heard, consistent with the principle that "orders are not passed in default."The validity of the impugned Notifications under Section 168A of the GST Act is currently sub judice before the Supreme Court, and this Court expressly leaves the issue "open" pending the Supreme Court's decision.Merely uploading SCNs and hearing notices on the 'Additional Notices Tab' of the GST portal, without direct communication such as e-mail or mobile notification, does not constitute sufficient service to the petitioner, especially prior to January 16, 2024; however, post that date, changes to the portal have improved visibility of such notices.The impugned demand orders dated 23rd April, 2024 and 5th December, 2023 are set aside, and the petitioner is granted time to file replies to outstanding SCNs, with directions for personal hearings and proper communication of hearing notices.The petitioner's rights to file replies, appear for hearings, and pursue appellate remedies are preserved, with all proceedings to be conducted in accordance with law and subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's ruling on the notifications.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the constitutional mandate under Article 226 and statutory provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly Section 168A (power to extend time limits) and Section 73 (adjudication of tax demands).The Court recognized a "cleavage of opinion amongst different High Courts" on the validity of the impugned notifications and noted that the issue is "squarely now pending before the Supreme Court," which has issued notice and interim orders in the related Special Leave Petition.The Court relied on prior decisions emphasizing the requirement of a fair opportunity to be heard before passing orders, citing precedents where matters were remanded to ensure that notices are properly served and hearings conducted.The Court acknowledged changes made to the GST portal after January 16, 2024, improving notice visibility, but held that in the present case (SCN dated May 21, 2024), mere uploading in the 'Additional Notices Tab' without direct communication was insufficient for due process.The Court adopted a cautious approach, refraining from deciding on the validity of the impugned notifications and instead remanding the matter for fresh adjudication after providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond, thus preserving judicial discipline pending the Supreme Court's final ruling.

---