TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
(i) Whether the adjudication order creating tax demand should be set aside on the ground that the taxpayer did not effectively receive notice and therefore did not file a reply or contest the matter on merits.
(ii) Whether the taxpayer's contention that the show cause notice and reminders were uploaded only under the "Additional Notices" tab on the GST portal (and hence were not within the taxpayer's knowledge) was sustainable on the facts of the case.
(iii) What consequential directions should be issued to secure a fair opportunity of reply and personal hearing, and whether the challenge to the impugned notifications extending limitation ought to be decided or kept open.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue (i) & (iii): Setting aside the demand order and remand to ensure opportunity of reply and hearing
Legal framework (as considered by the Court): The Court proceeded on the requirement of fair opportunity in adjudication, including an opportunity to file a reply to the show cause notice and to avail personal hearing before an adverse order is passed.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that, irrespective of the dispute regarding portal visibility, the impugned order had been passed without the taxpayer's submissions and contentions being heard on merits. The Court also took note that the validity of the impugned notifications (which relate to limitation/extension) was already under consideration before the Supreme Court and also before the Court in a separate pending matter, and therefore considered it appropriate, in the present case, to avoid deciding the vires challenge while still ensuring a merits-based adjudication after hearing.
Conclusions: The Court set aside the impugned adjudication order and granted time to the taxpayer to file a reply to the show cause notice. The adjudicating authority was directed to issue a personal hearing notice and thereafter pass fresh orders after duly considering the reply and submissions. The Court also directed that access to the GST portal be enabled within a specified time to permit filing of the reply and access to notices and related documents.
Issue (ii): Sustainability of the "Additional Notices" tab non-visibility objection
Legal framework (as considered by the Court): The Court examined the factual assertion regarding the GST portal's configuration and visibility of the "Additional Notices" tab at the relevant time.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court recorded that changes had been made to the GST portal after a stated date, making the "Additional Notices" tab visible. Since the show cause notice in the present case was issued after those changes, and the Court's review of the taxpayer's own portal screenshot showed the tab to be clearly visible and accessible, the Court held that the taxpayer's argument that the notice was not brought to its knowledge due to being placed under the "Additional Notices" tab was not tenable on these facts.
Conclusions: The Court rejected the contention that the taxpayer could not access the show cause notice due to its placement under the "Additional Notices" tab. Nonetheless, it still set aside the impugned order to ensure a substantive opportunity to respond and be heard before any fresh adjudication.
Issue (iii): Whether the Court should decide the validity of the impugned notifications
Legal framework (as considered by the Court): The Court noted that the validity of the impugned notifications was already pending consideration before the Supreme Court, and that a related challenge to parallel State notifications was pending before the Court in another matter.
Interpretation and reasoning: In view of the pendency and the need to maintain consistency while ensuring immediate procedural fairness in individual adjudications, the Court declined to finally determine the validity of the impugned notifications in this petition.
Conclusions: The Court expressly left open the issue of validity of the impugned notifications. It directed that any fresh order passed by the adjudicating authority would remain subject to the outcome of the pending proceedings before the Supreme Court and the pending proceedings before the Court concerning the State notification challenge.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
