GST portal service of show cause notice via "Additional Notices" tab without taxpayer awareness led to remand

The dominant issue was whether uploading the show cause notice (SCN) only on the GST portal's "Additional Notices" tab, without it being brought to the taxpayer's knowledge, violated principles of natural justice. Relying on earlier HC decisions in analogous facts, the Court held that where the SCN issued prior to the portal changes was not effectively communicated and no reply was filed, the noticee is denied a fair opportunity of hearing; consequently, the impugned proceedings could not be sustained as adjudicated. The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to enable filing of a reply and grant a proper hearing, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED

(i) Whether the adjudication order arising from the show cause notice for the relevant tax period should be set aside and the matter remanded, where the show cause notice and the adjudication order were uploaded on the GST Portal under the "Additional Notices Tab" and did not come to the petitioner's knowledge, resulting in absence of reply and effective denial of opportunity of hearing.

(ii) What directions are necessary to ensure a fair opportunity to respond and be heard on merits upon remand, including access to the GST Portal and mode of communication of hearing notices.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (i): Remand due to lack of effective notice and opportunity of hearing

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court proceeded on the requirement that adjudication should not occur "in default" and that a noticee must be given a proper opportunity to file a reply and be heard on merits before a demand is confirmed.

Interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the factual premise that the show cause notice (dated prior to 16 January 2024) was uploaded under the GST Portal's "Additional Notices Tab" and did not appear to have come to the petitioner's notice; consequently, no reply was filed and the adjudication culminated in an order without effective participation. The Court noted that, although the portal was later changed to make the "Additional Notices Tab" visible, the relevant notice in the present case pre-dated that change. In these circumstances, and consistent with the Court's approach in similar situations, the Court held that the petitioner did not receive a proper opportunity to be heard, warranting remand for adjudication afresh after receiving the petitioner's reply and hearing submissions.

Conclusions: The Court set aside the impugned adjudication order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration of the show cause notice after permitting the petitioner to file its reply and after granting a personal hearing.

Issue (ii): Directions to secure effective participation upon remand (reply timeline, hearing notice communication, portal access, and fresh reasoned order)

Legal framework (as discussed by the Court): The Court emphasized fairness in adjudication through (a) the ability to file a reply, (b) communication of hearing notice, (c) consideration of reply and submissions, and (d) issuance of a fresh reasoned order.

Interpretation and reasoning: To cure the earlier lack of effective notice and ensure meaningful hearing, the Court granted a specific deadline for filing the reply, mandated issuance of a personal hearing notice after the reply is filed, and directed that the hearing notice be communicated through the petitioner's counsel's mobile number and email address (not merely by portal upload). The Court further directed that the adjudicating authority must consider the reply and personal hearing submissions and pass a fresh reasoned order. Recognizing practical impediments, the Court also directed that access to the GST Portal be provided within one week so the petitioner can upload the reply and access notices and related documents.

Conclusions: The petitioner was permitted to file its reply to the show cause notice by the stipulated date; the adjudicating authority must then issue and communicate personal hearing notice through specified electronic means, consider the reply and hearing submissions, and pass a fresh reasoned order. Portal access was directed to be enabled within one week.

Matters expressly left open (not decided): The Court expressly left open the validity of the impugned notifications; any fresh order by the adjudicating authority was directed to remain subject to the outcome of the pending higher-court consideration identified in the judgment, and all rights and remedies were kept open.

---