2025 (4) TMI 1147 - HC - GST

Violation of principles of natural justice - neither the pre-intimation notice under Rule 142 (1A) nor the SCN were communicated or served upon the petitioner - Petitioner claims that petitioner was not aware of the said proceedings - HELD THAT - Though several contentions have been urged by both sides as regards to the petitioner not having received the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice and his inability and omission to contest the proceedings it is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or pre-intimation notice nor contested the proceedings which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order. So also the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has been dismissed as barred by limitation. Insofar as the appeal filed by the petitioner being rejected by the appellate authority vide order dated 01.10.2024 is concerned since the same was dismissed as barred by limitation the same would not constitute merger to come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Under these circumstances 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 order dated 10.07.2023 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law to the stage of petitioner submitting reply to the impugned show-cause notice. Conclusion - The matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit reply and contest proceedings. Petiiton disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

(a) Whether the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, confirming tax demand without the petitioner having been afforded an opportunity to reply to the pre-intimation notice and show-cause notice, is liable to be quashed.

(b) Whether the notices issued under Rule 142(1A) and Section 73(1) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, were duly communicated to the petitioner, and if not, whether non-communication vitiates the subsequent proceedings.

(c) Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned order, which was dismissed as barred by limitation, bars the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(d) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a further opportunity to submit a reply and contest the proceedings, given the circumstances of non-receipt of notices and bona fide reasons for non-participation.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a) and (b): Validity of the Impugned Order and Communication of Notices

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The impugned order was passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST/KGST Act, 2017, which empowers the tax authorities to confirm tax demands after issuance of a show-cause notice under Section 73(1). Rule 142(1A) of the CGST/KGST Rules, 2017 provides for issuance of a pre-intimation notice to the taxpayer before initiating recovery proceedings. Principles of natural justice require that the taxpayer be given an opportunity to be heard before passing an adverse order.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined whether the pre-intimation notice dated 19.11.2022 and the show-cause notice dated 27.04.2023 were communicated effectively to the petitioner. The respondents contended that notices were uploaded on the GST portal and sent by e-mail, constituting valid service. The petitioner, however, denied receipt of these notices and asserted unawareness of the proceedings, which resulted in an ex-parte order.

Key evidence and findings: It was an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit any reply to the pre-intimation or show-cause notices, nor did he contest the proceedings. The petitioner claimed non-receipt and lack of physical copies, which prevented him from responding.

Application of law to facts: The Court acknowledged the legal requirement of communication but also recognized the petitioner's assertion of bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances for non-response. The Court emphasized the importance of a justice-oriented approach, especially where the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to be heard.

Treatment of competing arguments: While the respondents relied on electronic communication as sufficient, the Court balanced this against the petitioner's claim of non-receipt and the consequences of an ex-parte order. The Court found merit in the petitioner's plea for an opportunity to contest.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that the impugned order was passed without affording the petitioner a proper opportunity to reply, thereby necessitating its setting aside and remand for fresh consideration.

Issue (c): Effect of Dismissal of Appeal as Barred by Limitation

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The appellate remedy under the CGST/KGST Act is subject to limitation. However, the High Court's jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution is independent and can be invoked notwithstanding dismissal of appeal on limitation grounds.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that the dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation does not constitute merger of the order or preclude the High Court from exercising its writ jurisdiction.

Key evidence and findings: The appeal was rejected on limitation grounds, and no merits were adjudicated.

Application of law to facts: The petitioner's inability to file a timely appeal due to non-receipt of notices was considered a sufficient ground to entertain the writ petition.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents argued that limitation barred the petitioner's remedy; the Court, however, prioritized substantive justice over procedural technicalities.

Conclusions: The Court held that the dismissal of the appeal on limitation grounds does not bar the High Court's jurisdiction to grant relief in the present petition.

Issue (d): Entitlement to Further Opportunity to Submit Reply and Contest Proceedings

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Principles of natural justice and settled jurisprudence mandate that a party must be given a reasonable opportunity to present its case before adverse orders are passed. The Court may set aside ex-parte orders and remand for fresh consideration if sufficient cause is shown.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court accepted the petitioner's submission of bona fide reasons and unavoidable circumstances for non-participation and emphasized the need for a justice-oriented approach.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's assertion that he was unaware of proceedings until the attachment notice and that he wishes to contest the demand was accepted.

Application of law to facts: The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the first respondent with directions to provide the petitioner an opportunity to submit replies and contest the proceedings.

Treatment of competing arguments: The respondents' contention that the petitioner had ample opportunity was rejected in light of the petitioner's non-receipt of notices and the need for fair hearing.

Conclusions: The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit replies and directed the authorities to provide reasonable opportunity and proceed in accordance with law.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that the petitioner did not submit his reply to the show-cause notice or pre-intimation notice nor contested the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned ex-parte order."

"Since the appeal filed by the petitioner before the second respondent has been dismissed as barred by limitation, the same would not constitute merger to come in the way of this Court exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India."

"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, I deem it just and appropriate to adopt a justice oriented approach and provide one more opportunity to the petitioner by setting aside the impugned order dated 10.07.2023 and remitting the matter back to the first respondent for reconsideration of the matter afresh in accordance with law."

The Court ordered:

(i) The impugned order dated 10.07.2023 is set aside.

(ii) The matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration after affording the petitioner an opportunity to submit reply and contest proceedings.

(iii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the first respondent on a specified date without awaiting further notice.

(iv) Failure to appear will result in automatic recall of the order and revival of the petition.

(v) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to submit replies and documents, which shall be considered by the respondent with reasonable opportunity.