2025 (8) TMI 1059 - HC - GST

Show-cause notices uploaded to GST portal after changes denied notice and chance to be heard; orders set aside, matter remanded

HC found violation of natural justice because show-cause notices issued on 24 Sep 2023 and 5 Dec 2025 were uploaded to the GST portal's Additional Notices ... Violation of principles of natural justice - service of SCN - impugned SCN were uploaded on the “Additional Notices Tab” of the GST portal - 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 impugned SCN was issued on 24th September, 2023 and 5th December, 2025, and the same were 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 has been filed by the Petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded back to the concerned Adjudicating Authority. The impugned orders are set aside. The Petitioner is given an opportunity to file a reply to the impugned SCN by 30th September, 2025 - Petition disposed off. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED 1. Whether uploading show cause notices (SCNs), reminder notices or hearing notices solely under an 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab on the GST portal (which was not visible to assessees prior to a portal change) constitutes valid service for purposes of the right to be heard and natural justice. 2. If such uploading is found insufficient, what remedial relief is appropriate - in particular, whether impugned orders passed in default must be set aside and the matter remitted for fresh adjudication with directions as to notice, opportunity to file reply and portal access. 3. Whether post-facto changes to the portal (making the 'Additional Notices' tab visible after a particular date) cure prior defects in notice or require further departmental measures to ensure fair notice and hearing. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of service where SCNs were uploaded only to an 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab not brought to notice of the taxpayer Legal framework: 1. Principles of natural justice and statutory/adjudicatory notice requirements require that a notice be brought to the recipient's attention so as to afford a fair opportunity to file replies and seek personal hearing before adverse orders are passed. Precedent Treatment: 2. The Court noted earlier decisions of this Court addressing identical factual matrices in which notices uploaded under an 'Additional Notices' tab (and not otherwise communicated) were held to have deprived noticees of an effective opportunity to be heard; those decisions remanded matters for fresh adjudication after permitting replies and hearings. Interpretation and reasoning: 3. The Court examined the timing and manner of upload: the impugned SCNs in the present matters were uploaded on dates preceding a portal redesign (i.e., when the 'Additional Notices' tab was not plainly visible to users). The petitioner did not receive email notification or other contemporaneous communication and, as a consequence, did not file any reply before adjudication. 4. The Court reasoned that mere technical upload to a part of the portal that was not brought to the user's attention cannot be equated with effective service. Where the aggrieved party lacked knowledge of the SCN, the foundational requirement of a fair opportunity to be heard was not met and consequent orders passed in such default cannot stand. Ratio vs. Obiter: 5. Ratio - Where an adjudicatory notice (SCN / hearing / reminder) is uploaded solely to an 'Additional Notices' area that was not visible or brought to the notice of the recipient at the time of upload, such uploading does not constitute effective service and deprives the recipient of the opportunity to be heard; consequent orders passed in default warrant setting aside and remand for fresh adjudication after giving notice and opportunity to reply. Conclusion: 6. The Court concluded that the impugned SCNs and consequent adjudication suffered from defective notice and denial of opportunity to be heard; the impugned orders were therefore set aside and remitted for fresh consideration after giving the petitioner an opportunity to file replies and be heard. Issue 2: Appropriate remedial directions where defective portal-based notice leads to adjudication in default Legal framework: 1. Remedies flowing from violation of natural justice include setting aside orders passed in default and directing the adjudicating authority to permit filing of replies, grant personal hearing and pass fresh orders after considering submissions; administrative authorities must effectuate notice in a manner that ensures actual knowledge. Precedent Treatment: 2. Consistent past decisions of this Court (addressing similar portal-notice defects) have remanded adjudications to enable filing of replies within a specified period, directed that hearings not be limited to mere portal uploads and required additional communication measures to ensure effective notice. Interpretation and reasoning: 3. The Court applied those remedial principles: given the lack of actual notice, it was necessary to set aside the demand orders and permit the petitioner to file replies within a time-bound period. The adjudicating authority must consider the reply and personal hearing submissions and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. 4. The Court also considered practical steps needed to avoid recurrence: e-mailing hearing notices and providing portal access to enable uploading of the reply and inspection of documents were imposed as reasonable departmental measures to ensure the petitioner's participation. Ratio vs. Obiter: 5. Ratio - Where defective service via a portal has resulted in adjudication without the recipient's knowledge, the proper remedy is to set aside the order, permit the recipient to file a reply within a specified period, ensure that a personal hearing is actually communicated (e.g., by e-mail and SMS), provide access to the portal and related documents, and require the authority to pass a fresh adjudication after hearing. Conclusion: 6. The Court directed that the impugned orders be set aside; the petitioner be permitted to file a reply within a specified date; hearing notices be sent by e-mail and mobile SMS (not merely uploaded); portal access be provided promptly to enable uploading replies and viewing documents; and the adjudicating authority to consider submissions and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Rights and remedies of the parties were kept open. Issue 3: Effect of post-facto portal modifications on validity of earlier uploads and departmental obligations Legal framework: 1. Administrative ameliorations (portal redesigns, shifting tabs) that occur after the date of an alleged defective service do not retroactively validate prior inadequate modes of communication; authorities remain obliged to ensure fair notice at the time of issuance. Precedent Treatment: 2. Earlier orders of this Court acknowledged that making an 'Additional Notices' tab more visible prospectively helps future compliance, but held that where notices were uploaded prior to such change and were not otherwise communicated, remedial measures including remand are required. Interpretation and reasoning: 3. The Court recognized that the portal was modified after a certain date to make the tab visible; however, that post-facto correction did not cure the defect for SCNs uploaded earlier when the tab was not visible. Departmental steps to review past uploads and adopt remedial measures were urged in earlier decisions and applied here to avoid injustice. Ratio vs. Obiter: 4. Ratio - Portal modifications effective prospectively do not cure defective communications made before such modifications; where prior uploads were not effectively brought to taxpayers' notice, authorities must adopt remedial measures (including remand and re-service) to satisfy principles of natural justice. Conclusion: 5. The Court held that subsequent visibility of the tab does not validate earlier non-communication; it affirmed the need for departmental measures and directed specific steps (email/mobile communication and portal access) to remedy the defect in the present matters. Cross-references and operative commands 1. The Court's conclusions draw upon and follow prior decisions of this Court addressing identical portal-notice defects; the remedial approach (setting aside, permitting reply, e-mail/SMS of hearing notices, portal access, fresh adjudication) is consistent with those precedents. 2. The key operative directions are interlinked: once the impugned orders are set aside for defective notice, the petitioner must be permitted to file a reply within a specified period; the Department must ensure hearing notices are communicated by e-mail/mobile in addition to portal upload; portal access and documents must be provided to enable effective participation; and the adjudicating authority must pass a fresh order after hearing and considering the reply.