Case Law Details
Satish Chand Mittal Vs Sales Tax Officer SGST (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court has set aside a tax order issued by the Sales Tax Officer under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, ruling that the show cause notice preceding the order was not properly served to the petitioner. The court highlighted issues with how notices were displayed on the GST portal at the time.
The petitioner, Satish Chand Mittal, challenged the order dated December 30, 2023, which related to the period from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that he never received the show cause notice dated September 29, 2023, or a subsequent reminder, and therefore had no opportunity to respond or attend the scheduled personal hearings. A key reason cited for the non-receipt was that the notice was placed on the GST Portal under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab, which the petitioner argued was not readily accessible or routinely checked by taxpayers.
The petitioner also pointed out that the impugned show cause notice, the reminder, and the final order were all unsigned.
Appearing for the respondent, the learned counsel conceded that the central issue in the case was covered by previous decisions of the Delhi High Court. Specifically, reference was made to the judgments in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB) and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52 (Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108-DB). These precedents similarly addressed the inadequacy of notice when uploaded solely under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab. The respondent’s counsel noted that the issue with the portal’s layout had since been addressed, with the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab now located adjacent to the main ‘Notices & Orders’ tab.
In light of the circumstances and the acknowledged judicial precedents, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The court granted the respondent another opportunity to issue a proper notice to the petitioner, allowing him two weeks to file a reply. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to consider the reply and issue a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing.
The ruling underscores the importance of effective communication of official notices to taxpayers and the potential for procedural lapses in online systems to invalidate subsequent actions. The case was disposed of along with pending applications.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Issue notice.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent accepts notice.
3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 30.12.2023 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the Adjudicating Authority under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 / the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the CGST Act/ SGST Act), in respect of period from July 2017 to March 2018.
The said order was passed pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN). In addition to the impugned SCN, the Adjudicating Authority had also issued a Reminder dated 23.11.2023.
4. It is the petitioner’s case that he had not received the impugned SCN and, therefore, he had no opportunity to respond to the same. For the same reason, the petitioner claims that he had not appear for a personal hearing before the Adjudicating Authority, which was scheduled on 17.10.2023 and later rescheduled to 30.11.2023 as per the Reminder.
5. The petitioner also states that the impugned SCN, the Reminder and the impugned order are unsigned.
6. Mr. Singhvi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on advance notice, fairly states that the principal issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52 : Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108-DB.
7. He states that possibly, the petitioner did not had the access of the Notices as they were projected on the GST Portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices & Orders’. He submits that the said issue has now been addressed and the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab is placed under the general menu and adjacent to the tab ‘Notices & Orders’.
8. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
9. The respondent is granted another opportunity to reply to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date. The Adjudicating Authority shall consider the same and pass such order, as it deems fit, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
11. All pending applications are also disposed of.
Author Bio
