Portal-only notice breached natural justice; order set aside, remanded; petitioner given until 15 Oct 2025 to file reply, get hearing

The HC found a breach of natural justice where the SCN and related notices were only uploaded to the portal's "Additional Notices Tab" and not brought to the petitioner's attention, resulting in no opportunity to reply. The impugned order was set aside and the matter remanded to the Adjudicating Authority. The petitioner was granted time until 15 October 2025 to file a reply; after filing, the Authority must issue a personal hearing notice (to be communicated beyond mere portal upload) and afford the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before proceeding.

---

---

ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

1. Whether uploading a show cause notice, reminder and order on the GST portal under an "Additional Notices" tab, without separate communication to the addressee, violates the principles of natural justice by depriving the noticee of an opportunity to reply and be heard.

2. Whether an adjudication/order passed in circumstances where the noticee did not receive effective notice (due to placement of documents in the "Additional Notices" tab) must be set aside and remitted for de novo adjudication after affording an opportunity to reply and be heard.

3. What procedural safeguards/remedies are appropriate where departmental electronic processes result in non-receipt of notices (including mode and manner of communication and access to portals)?

4. Whether the court should decide the validity of statutory notifications extending limitation or keep that issue open pending higher court decisions when raised incidentally.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1 - Validity of service by uploading on an "Additional Notices" tab and consequences for natural justice

Legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that a person adverse to whom action is contemplated must be given effective notice and an opportunity to respond. Statutory scheme contemplates issuance/service of show cause notices and opportunity for adjudication under the CGST Act, 2017.

Precedent Treatment: The Court follows prior decisions of this Court addressing identical facts where notices uploaded under an "Additional Notices & Orders" tab were held to be ineffective in bringing the SCN to the notice of the noticee; those matters were remanded to permit hearing (decisions cited and followed by the Court).

Interpretation and reasoning: Where the SCN (dated prior to portal changes that made "Additional Notices" visible) and subsequent reminder and orders were uploaded to a tab not reasonably accessed/visible to the noticee, the department's action resulted in non-communication. Absence of actual knowledge/communication meant the noticee had no realistic opportunity to file a reply or attend a personal hearing; consequently, adjudication on merits could not fairly proceed. The Court notes that portal visibility changes effected after a specified date do not cure defects in notices uploaded earlier when the tab was effectively hidden or not brought to the noticee's attention.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where electronic notices are effectively not communicated because they are uploaded to an obscure/hidden tab, service is not reasonably effected and consequent orders passed without giving an effective opportunity to be heard are vitiated by breach of natural justice.

Conclusions: The impugned SCN, reminders and resultant orders uploaded on the "Additional Notices" tab (when that tab was not reasonably visible) did not constitute effective communication; the resulting adjudication is set aside and requires fresh consideration after effective communication and opportunity to be heard.

Issue 2 - Necessity and scope of remand where notice was not properly communicated

Legal framework: Where there is a defect in notice or denial of hearing, ordinary judicial practice is to set aside the adverse order and remit the matter for fresh adjudication after affording opportunity to be heard; adjudicatory authorities are to consider replies and oral submissions and pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

Precedent Treatment: The Court relies on and follows its earlier remand orders in similar fact-situations directing fresh adjudication and opportunity for reply and personal hearing.

Interpretation and reasoning: Given non-receipt of SCN/reply and absence of hearing, the just remedy is to set aside the impugned order and remit to the Adjudicating Authority to allow filing of reply within a specified period, issue personal hearing notice and consider submissions before passing a fresh order. The Court prescribes timelines for filing reply and directs adjudication in accordance with law.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Remand with directions to provide opportunity to file reply and to conduct personal hearing (with specific communication requirements) is the appropriate remedy where effective service is lacking.

Conclusions: The impugned order is set aside; the matter is remitted with directions to permit filing of reply within stipulated time, to issue personal hearing notices and to adjudicate afresh after hearing the noticee.

Issue 3 - Procedural safeguards: mode of communication, portal access and ancillary directions

Legal framework: Administrative actions delivered electronically must be reasonably calculated to bring the communication to the attention of the addressee; where the government/department uses electronic portals, concomitant measures (e.g., e-mail/SMS) may be required to ensure effective service. Parties have a right to access relevant documents necessary to prepare replies.

Precedent Treatment: The Court follows prior directions in like matters requiring more than mere portal upload and directing additional measures to ensure receipt (e.g., e-mail and personal hearing notices), and provides access to the portal to enable uploading of replies.

Interpretation and reasoning: Mere upload on a portal tab that was not readily visible cannot be treated as adequate. To avoid recurrence and to enable meaningful adjudication, the Court directs that hearing notices shall not merely be uploaded but shall also be e-mailed to the noticee and a mobile number provided for communication; the noticee must be given portal access within a week to enable uploading of replies and access to documents.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Directives that hearing notices must be communicated by e-mail and mobile/SMS in addition to portal upload, and that access to the portal must be provided to the noticee to enable filing of replies, are binding procedural directions tailored to the defect identified.

Conclusions: Department must e-mail the hearing notice and communicate via the specified mobile number; provide portal access to the noticee within one week to enable filing of reply and access to related documents. Adjudicating Authority to consider reply and hearing submissions and pass fresh order.

Issue 4 - Validity of notifications extending time-limits: whether to decide or leave open

Legal framework: Challenges to the validity of notifications extending statutory time-limits raise substantial legal questions and may be pending in higher fora; resolution of such questions can affect assessment of limitation and applicability of proceedings.

Precedent Treatment: The Court refrains from deciding on the validity of the notifications extending time-limits where such issues are sub judice before the Supreme Court and in other pending writs before this Court.

Interpretation and reasoning: Given ongoing proceedings in higher courts on the validity of specific notifications extending time-limits, the Court leaves the issue open and confines its order to procedural relief ensuring fair opportunity. Any adjudicatory determination made by the Adjudicating Authority on those notifications is to be subject to the outcome of the pending appeals and writs.

Ratio vs. Obiter: Obiter (procedural restraint) - The Court intentionally does not adjudicate the validity of the listed notifications; this is a deliberate judicial restraint pending authoritative pronouncement.

Conclusions: The question of validity of the notifications extending time-limits is left open; any order by the Adjudicating Authority on those notifications shall be subject to the outcome of the pending superior court decisions. All rights and remedies of the parties are expressly left open.

---