9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 728 - HC - GSTVioaltion of principles of natural justice - Petitioner submits that Petitioner never received the SCN and accordingly could not respond to the same - HELD THAT - This Court is of the view that following the earlier decisions passed by this Court the Petitioner herein also deserves to be given an opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Department for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is at liberty to file a response to the impugned Show Cause Notice within a period of 30 days - Petition dispsoed off by way of remand.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The primary legal question considered in this case is whether the uploading of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under the category of 'Additional Notices' on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service of notice in accordance with Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). Additionally, the court considered whether the Petitioner should be granted an opportunity to respond to the SCN and be afforded a personal hearing. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents Section 169 of the CGST Act outlines the modes of service of notice, including electronic communication. The Petitioner contended that the notice was not served properly as it was uploaded under 'Additional Notices', which was not easily accessible. The Petitioner relied on precedents such as Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II and ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, where similar issues were addressed, and it was held that uploading notices under 'Additional Notices' does not meet the requirements of Section 169. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning The Court considered the precedents and the arguments presented by both parties. It noted that the issue of uploading notices under 'Additional Notices' had been previously adjudicated, and it was determined that such a method does not constitute sufficient service of notice. The Court referenced the High Court of Madras's decision, which highlighted the need for clear categorization on the portal to ensure taxpayers are properly informed. Key Evidence and Findings The Petitioner argued that the SCN was not accessible due to its placement under 'Additional Notices', which was not the standard practice. The Respondents contended that the uploading of the notice on the portal was sufficient. The Court found merit in the Petitioner's argument, supported by prior judgments that emphasized the inadequacy of the 'Additional Notices' category for serving notices. Application of Law to Facts The Court applied the legal principles established in previous cases to the facts at hand, concluding that the service of the SCN under 'Additional Notices' did not comply with Section 169. The Court emphasized the importance of proper service to ensure taxpayers can adequately respond to notices. Treatment of Competing Arguments The Court acknowledged the Respondents' argument regarding the sufficiency of electronic service but ultimately sided with the Petitioner's position, supported by established case law. The Court highlighted the need for clarity and accessibility in the service of notices to uphold the principles of natural justice. Conclusions The Court concluded that the Petitioner was not properly served with the SCN due to its placement under 'Additional Notices'. As a result, the Petitioner was entitled to an opportunity to respond to the SCN and be heard. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that the placement of SCNs under 'Additional Notices' does not satisfy the service requirements under Section 169 of the CGST Act. It reiterated the principle that taxpayers must be given a fair opportunity to respond to notices, which necessitates proper and accessible service. The Court set aside the Impugned Orders dated 21.12.2023 and 13.11.2024 and remanded the matter to the concerned authority for fresh adjudication, allowing the Petitioner to file a response within 30 days and ensuring an opportunity for a personal hearing.
|
