2025 (12) TMI 1774 - HC - GST

GST portal 'Additional Notices' tab service of show cause notice upheld, but adjudication order set aside for natural justice breach

The dominant issue was whether the show cause notice (SCN) was validly served by being uploaded on the GST portal's 'Additional Notices' tab. The HC held ... Principles of natural justice - Proper service of SCN or not - SCN was uploaded on the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ - vires of N/N. 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December, 2023 and N/N. 56/2023-State Tax dated 7th July, 2024 - extension of time limitation for adjudication of SCN - 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. In the present case, the SCN was issued on 17th May, 2024. A perusal of the screenshot of the GST Portal of the Petitioner also clearly shows that the ‘Additional Notices Tab’ is clearly visible and accessible to the Petitioner. Hence, the argument of the Petitioner pertaining to ‘Additional Notices Tab’ is not tenable in the present case. However, considering the fact that the impugned order was passed without hearing the submissions and contentions of the Petitioner and since the impugned notifications are under challenge before the Supreme Court, as also this Court, the Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The Petitioner is granted time till 30th September, 2025 to file the reply to the SCN. Upon filing of the reply, the Adjudicating Authority shall issue a notice for personal hearing to the Petitioner - the impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off. 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.