Case Law Details
Kamla Vohra Vs Sales Tax Officer (Delhi 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).
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.
In conclusion, the Kamla Vohra Vs Sales Tax Officer case illustrates the significance of procedural compliance in CGST appeals and administrative adjudication. The court’s decision to set aside the order highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring fair treatment and adherence to statutory requirements in tax matters.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 08.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act) pursuant to the show cause notice dated 10.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN).
2. The petitioner claims that the impugned SCN was not received and therefore she neither filed a reply nor appeared before the concerned authorities.
3. The impugned SCN was uploaded on the portal in the category of ‘Additional Notices’ which the petitioner claims was not easily accessible. It is contended that the show cause notices were required to be placed under the heading of ‘Notices’ but the same was not done.
4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by earlier decisions of this Court, including in ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India: [2024] 163 com 17 (Delhi).
5. In the said decision, this Court had rejected the contention that uploading of the notices under the heading ‘Additional Notices’ would be sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below :-
“4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, uploading of a notice on the portal is sufficient compliance with regard to intimation to the taxpayer.
5. We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel, reference may be had to the judgment of the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 26457/2023, titled M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) dated 11-9-2023, wherein the High Court of Madras has noticed that communications are placed under the heading of “View Notices and Orders” and “View Additional Notices and Orders”. The Madras High Court had directed the respondents to address the issue arising out of posting of information under two separate headings. As per the petitioner, the Menu “View Additional Notices and Orders” were under the heading of “User Services” and not under the heading “View Notices and Orders”.
6. The GST Authorities had addressed the issue and had re-designed the portal to ensure that ‘View Notices’ tab and ‘View Additional Notices’ tab were placed under one heading. The impugned SCN was issued before the portal was re-designed.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
8. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to adjudicate the SCN afresh. The petitioner is at liberty to file a response to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date.
9. The concerned authority shall adjudicate the impugned SCN after considering the petitioner’s response and after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.
Author Bio
