Neeraj Kumar Vs Proper Officer SGST Ward (Delhi High Court)
In a significant ruling on July 30, 2024, the Delhi High Court addressed a critical issue concerning the procedural compliance of issuing show cause notices (SCNs) under the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST) Act. The case, Neeraj Kumar vs. Proper Officer SGST Ward, centered on whether the method of uploading an SCN under the ‘Additional Notices’ category was sufficient for proper service under the law. This decision follows a petition challenging an order dated December 30, 2023, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act and highlights essential aspects of procedural correctness in tax administration.
Case Background
Neeraj Kumar, the petitioner, is a sole proprietor of ABM Pneumatics & Hydraulic Sales and has been registered under GST since July 1, 2017. The petitioner challenged the validity of an SCN issued on September 28, 2023, claiming that the SCN was uploaded under ‘Additional Notices,’ a category that is less visible and less accessible compared to the ‘Notices and Orders’ category on the GST portal. This procedural issue led to claims of inadequate notice and thus a violation of the petitioner’s rights.
Key Issues
1 Uploading under ‘Additional Notices’: The crux of the petitioner’s argument was that the SCN was not adequately served. According to the petitioner, the SCN should have been placed under ‘Notices and Orders,’ which is the primary section for formal notices. The argument was that the ‘Additional Notices’ section was not readily accessible, which could undermine the opportunity for the petitioner to respond appropriately.
2. Procedural Non-compliance: The petitioner also contended that the SCN was barred by limitation and challenged the validity of Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax, which extended the time limits under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act.
3. Precedent Case Law: The petitioner cited precedents, including the decision in ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, where similar issues were examined. The court had previously ruled that merely uploading a notice under ‘Additional Notices’ did not fulfill the requirements for proper service.
Court’s Decision
