Case Law Details
Anhad Impex & Anr Vs Assistant Commissioner & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Introduction: The case of Anhad Impex, represented by its partner, against the Assistant Commissioner of Delhi, revolves around a demand created under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner contests the order, citing non-receipt of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) due to its misplaced upload on the GST portal.
Detailed Analysis
1. Petitioner’s Claim: The petitioner asserts that they did not receive the SCN dated 24.09.2023, crucial for their response. It is argued that the SCN was erroneously uploaded under “Additional Notices” instead of the usual “Notices” section on the GST portal, leading to its oversight.
2. Legal Standpoint: The petitioner’s counsel argues that according to Section 169 of the CGST Act, uploading a notice on the portal constitutes sufficient compliance with intimation to the taxpayer. However, the Delhi High Court disagrees, citing precedents from the Madras High Court that highlighted discrepancies in the portal’s notice categorization.
3. Judicial Precedents: The court refers to cases where notices were misplaced on the GST portal, leading to similar challenges in responding to them. These judgments emphasize the need for clarity and accessibility of notices to ensure procedural fairness.
4. Delhi HC Ruling: Recognizing the petitioner’s inability to respond to the SCN due to the portal’s design flaw, the court directs re-adjudication. It orders the reopening of the portal for the petitioner to file a response within 30 days and mandates the Proper Officer to adjudicate the SCN within four weeks thereafter, providing the petitioner with a chance for a personal hearing.
Conclusion: The Delhi High Court’s directive in the case of Anhad Impex underscores the importance of procedural fairness in tax-related proceedings. The court’s ruling acknowledges the petitioner’s challenge in accessing the SCN due to a flaw in the GST portal’s design. By ordering re-adjudication, the court upholds the principles of natural justice and ensures that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case. This decision highlights the need for clarity and user-friendly interfaces in digital platforms used for legal communications, emphasizing the importance of effective notice delivery in administrative proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Petitioner impugns order dated 29.11.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a demand has been created against the petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner never received the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023 and accordingly could not respond to the same. Learned counsel submits that the Show Cause Notices are normally uploaded on the portal under the heading of „Notices‟, however, in the instant case it appears that the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on the portal in the category of „Additional Notices‟ which were not easily accessible, and accordingly skipped the attention of the petitioner. He prays that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice and an opportunity of a personal hearing be also given.
3. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the respondent. With the consent of parties, this petition is taken up for hearing today.
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 P. No.26457/2023, titled M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) dated 11.09.2023, 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. This issue is further highlighted by another judgment of the Madras High Court dated 31.07.2023 in W.P. No.22369/2023 and other connected petitions, wherein the Madras High Court has noticed as under:-
“3. The only ground on which the, the impugned orders are under challenge is that the notices, which preceded the impugned orders were hosted in the Dashboard of the petitioner meant for Additional Notices and Orders‟ whereas, the notices should have been hosted by the respondent in the Dash Board for View Notices and Orders‟.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the manual copy given by the respondent in the web portal, which reads as under:-
“How can I view or download the notices and demand orders issued by the GST tax authorities?
To view or download the notices and demand orders issues by the GST tax authorities, perform the following steps:
1. Access the www.gst.gov.in URL. The GST Home page is displayed.
2. Login to the GST Portal with valid credentials.
3. Click the Services > User Services > View Notices and Orders command.
5. It is submitted that had the notice been uploaded in the correct place, the petitioner would have seen it and replied to the same and participated in the proceedings. Since the Notices and the Orders were hosted in the Dashboard of the petitioner meant for “Additional Notices and Orders”, the petitioner failed to notice and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
9. The problem has arisen on account of the complex architecture of the web portal. It has been designed to facilitate easy access of informations. It has however resulted in the petitioner failing to notice the notice that was issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order on 20.03.2023. It went unnoticed by the petitioner, as a result of which, the impugned orders have been passed on 29.04.2023.”
7. Attention is also drawn to yet another judgment of Madras High Court dated 08.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.2746/2024, titled Murugesan Jayalakshmi Vs. State Tax Officer, wherein the Madras High Court has noticed that the said issue has been addressed and the portal has been re-designed and both the “View Notices” tab and “View Additional Notices” tab are under one heading.
8. Clearly, petitioner has made out a case that petitioner has missed out the receipt of the notice and accordingly could not respondent to the Show Cause Notice.
9. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order categorically records that the tax payer has not replied or appeared in person. Consequently, we are of the view that petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated.
10. In view of the above, impugned order dated 29.11.2023 is set Respondent shall open the portal to enable the petitioner to file a response to the said Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023 which shall be filed within a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the Proper Officer of the respondent shall adjudicate the Show Cause Notice within a period of four weeks thereof. Petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of personal hearing.
11. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
Author Bio
