2023 (9) TMI 501 - HC - GST

Validity of SCN - Error in posting in the dashboard (Web Portal) - the impugned orders were hosted in the Dashboard of the petitioner meant for 'Additional Notices and Orders' whereas, the notices should have been hosted by the respondent in the Dash Board for 'View Notices and Orders' - HELD THAT - The problem has arisen on account of the complex architecture of the web portal. It has been designed to facilitate easy access of informations. It has however resulted in the petitioner failing to notice the notice that was issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order on 20.03.2023. It went unnoticed by the petitioner, as a result of which, the impugned orders have been passed on 29.04.2023. The impugned orders are quashed and the case is remitted back to the respondent to pass a fresh order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to impugned orders for Assessment Years 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 due to incorrect placement of notices on the petitioner's Dashboard.

Summary:

Issue 1: Incorrect placement of notices on Dashboard
The petitioner challenged orders due to notices being hosted in the wrong section of the Dashboard, hindering their ability to respond. The respondent argued that the notices were communicated, and there was no violation of natural justice principles.

Details:
The petitioner contested orders based on notices being placed in the Dashboard for 'Additional Notices and Orders' instead of 'View Notices and Orders.' This led to the petitioner missing the notices and failing to participate in the proceedings. The respondent contended that despite the incorrect placement, the notices were communicated to the petitioner, and there was no breach of natural justice principles.

Issue 2: Impact of incorrect placement on petitioner
The complex web portal architecture caused the petitioner to overlook the notice issued prior to the impugned orders. This oversight resulted in the passing of orders without the petitioner's response.

Details:
The web portal's design, aimed at easy information access, inadvertently caused the petitioner to miss the notice issued before the impugned orders. Consequently, the orders were passed without the petitioner's awareness or participation.

Judgment:
The High Court quashed the impugned orders and remitted the case back to the respondent for fresh consideration within 60 days. The quashed orders were deemed as corrigendum to the notices, requiring the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days. The Writ Petitions were allowed with no costs, and connected Miscellaneous Petitions were closed.