Case Law Details
Reddy Enterprises Vs Appellate Authority and Additional Commissioner (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
The case of Kamla Vohra Vs Sales Tax Officer before the Delhi High Court revolves around challenges to an order issued under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner contests the validity of the order citing procedural irregularities in the service of the show cause notice (SCN). This article delves into the legal intricacies and implications of this case, examining its impact on CGST appeals and judicial precedent.
The petitioner’s primary contention is centered on the service of the impugned SCN, which was allegedly not received due to its placement under the category of ‘Additional Notices’ on the portal. It is argued that such categorization rendered the notice inaccessible, thereby violating procedural requirements under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
The court’s decision is influenced by prior judgments, including the ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India case, where the Delhi High Court rejected similar arguments regarding the adequacy of notices uploaded under ‘Additional Notices’. This precedent underscores the importance of proper notice placement under the ‘View Notices’ category for effective communication with taxpayers.
Furthermore, the court referred to the Madras High Court’s decision in M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), highlighting discrepancies in portal design and the subsequent corrective actions taken by GST authorities. The petitioner’s case benefited from these observations, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remand for fresh adjudication.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
