2024 (2) TMI 1070 - HC - GST

Principles of natural justice - SCN was uploaded on the portal in the category of Additional Notices which were not easily accessible - Petitioner prays that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice and an opportunity of a personal hearing be also given - HELD THAT - Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order categorically records that the tax payer has not replied or appeared in person. Consequently, the petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated. Respondent shall open the portal to enable the petitioner to file a response to the said Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023 which shall be filed within a period of 30 days - the impugned order is set aside - petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues involved: Impugned order u/s 73 of Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017; Non-receipt of Show Cause Notice; Compliance with Section 169 of the Act.

Impugned Order u/s 73 of CGST Act, 2017:
The petitioner challenged an order dated 29.11.2023 passed u/s 73 of the CGST Act, creating a demand against them. The petitioner contended non-receipt of the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023, crucial for their response. The petitioner sought an opportunity to respond and a personal hearing, emphasizing the missed notice due to its placement under 'Additional Notices' instead of 'Notices' on the portal.

Non-receipt of Show Cause Notice:
The petitioner's counsel argued that as per Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, notice uploading on the portal constitutes sufficient intimation to the taxpayer. However, referencing a Madras High Court judgment, it was noted that notices should be under 'View Notices and Orders' rather than 'Additional Notices and Orders,' as highlighted in previous cases. The petitioner missed responding due to the notice's incorrect placement on the portal.

Compliance with Section 169 of the Act:
The court acknowledged the issue arising from the complex web portal design, leading to the petitioner's failure to notice the crucial notice. Citing another Madras High Court judgment, it was mentioned that the portal was redesigned to have both 'View Notices' and 'View Additional Notices' under one heading. As the petitioner missed the notice, the impugned order was set aside, granting them 30 days to respond and a subsequent adjudication within four weeks, along with a personal hearing opportunity.