2025 (12) TMI 1777 - HC - GST

Taxpayer missed GST show-cause reply due to unnoticed e-notices; proceedings reopened for fresh hearing, with Rs 10,000 costs.

The dominant issue was whether GST assessment and demand proceedings should be quashed where the taxpayer asserted lack of awareness of the electronic ... Seeking quashing of SCN, orders, summary SCN and summary orders - petitioner was not aware of the FORM GST ASMT-10, FORM GST DRC-01A and SCN - petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice - petitioner seekis one more opportunity to submit reply - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the specific assertion on the part of the petitioner that his inability and omission to submit replies and contest the proceedings was due to bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause, it is deemed just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned orders at Annexures-A1, A2, A3, A4, A5 and A6 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice dated 13.12.2023 by imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner payable to the High Court Advocate Welfare Fund. The matter is remitted back to the first respondent for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law from the stage of petitioner submitting its reply to the notice dated 13.12.2023 subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 10,000/- to the High Court Advocate Welfare Fund - petition allowed by way of remand. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED (a) Whether the adjudication under Section 73(9) could be sustained when the assessee asserted bona fide inability to respond to the pre-intimation/show-cause notices due to non-use of the email address to which notices were sent, resulting in no reply and no contest to the proceedings. (b) Whether the Court should adopt a justice-oriented approach to set aside the adjudication and consequential appellate rejection and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority from the stage of filing reply to the show-cause notice, subject to conditions (costs, appearance date, and automatic recall on default). 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS (a) Sustainability of the Section 73(9) adjudication in light of asserted bona fide non-participation Legal framework: The Court noted that the show-cause notice was issued under Section 73(1) and that the demand was confirmed by an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST regime. Interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated as material the petitioner's specific assertion that replies were not filed because notices (including pre-intimation and show-cause) were sent to an email address that was not in use, and that the omission to respond and contest the proceedings was due to 'bona fide reasons, unavoidable circumstances and sufficient cause.' On this basis, the Court considered it appropriate to grant an additional opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice. Conclusion: The Court held that a fresh opportunity was warranted and, accordingly, set aside the adjudication order passed under Section 73(9) (and the connected summary forms/notices as part of the relief granted) to enable reconsideration from the reply stage. (b) Appropriateness of remand with conditions, including setting aside the appellate rejection and imposing costs Legal framework: The Court proceeded on its writ jurisdiction to grant relief by quashing the impugned orders and remitting the matter for reconsideration, while imposing conditions to balance equities. Interpretation and reasoning: Having decided to adopt a 'justice oriented approach,' the Court determined that the proper course was to remit the matter to the adjudicating authority for a de novo consideration from the stage of filing reply to the show-cause notice. To ensure diligence and fairness to the revenue, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- payable to the High Court Advocate Welfare Fund, fixed a specific appearance date before the adjudicating authority without further notice, and reserved liberty to the petitioner to file replies/documents to be considered after a sufficient and reasonable opportunity of hearing. Conclusions: (i) The adjudication order and the order rejecting the appeal as time-barred were set aside; (ii) the matter was remanded for reconsideration afresh from the reply stage, conditional upon payment of costs; (iii) the petitioner was directed to appear on a specified date; and (iv) non-appearance on that date would result in automatic recall of the Court's order.