Case Law Details
Bablu Rana Vs Proper Officer SGST Ward -24 Zone -1 & Anr (Delhi High Court)
In the case of Bablu Rana Vs Proper Officer SGST Ward-24 Zone-1 & Anr, the Delhi High Court examined the procedural compliance regarding the issuance and service of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act). The petitioner, a sole proprietor registered with GST authorities, challenged the SCN issued on 22.09.2023 and the subsequent order dated 18.12.2023, arguing that the notice was not served appropriately. The SCN had been uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” category on the GST portal, which the petitioner claimed was not easily accessible and did not meet the requirements under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The petitioner also contested Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax, which extended the time limit for adjudication under Section 73(9) for FY 2017-18 to 31.12.2023.
The court found merit in the petitioner’s claims, particularly regarding the improper categorization of the SCN on the portal, which created procedural ambiguities. Referring to prior judgments, including the ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. case, the court held that uploading notices under a separate heading does not constitute sufficient service under the CGST Act. The court also noted that the GST authorities had since addressed the portal design issue, but the SCN in question was issued before the redesign. Consequently, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, allowing the petitioner to respond to the SCN within two weeks. The ruling reinforces the importance of adhering to procedural norms for ensuring fair compliance under GST laws.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF DELHI HIGH COURT
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 18.12.2023 (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 22.09.2023 (hereafter the impugned SCN).
2. The petitioner also impugns the Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023 (hereafter the impugned notification), whereby the time limit specified under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for passing an order under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, inter-alia, for the year 2017-18 was extended up to 31.12.2023. The impugned notification was issued in exercise of power conferred under Section 1 68A of the CGST Act.
3. The petitioner further claims that the impugned SCN is barred by
4. The petitioner is the sole proprietor of the concern (Tara Trading Co.) registered with the GST Authorities since 01.07.2017. It was assigned Goods and Services Tax Identification No.– 07AQXPR6876N1ZD (GSTIN)
5. The impugned SCN was uploaded on the portal in the category of ‘Additional Notices and Orders,’ which the petitioner claims were not easily It is contended that the show cause notices were required to be placed under the heading of ‘Notices and Orders’ but the same was not done.
6. 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: Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:41 08-DB.
7. In the said decision, this Court had rejected the contention that uploading of a notice 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 counse for respondent submits that in terms f 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.
8. 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 “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”.
8. The GST Authorities have addressed the issue and have re-designed the portal to ensure that thU ‘VLUEZ 1ticUsL Fab aJQ ‘ViUE DQQiti1pa9 N1ticU$’ taL are placed under one heading. However, admittedly, the impugned SCN was issued before the portal was re-designed.
9. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
10.The matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority for consideration The petitioner is at liberty to file a response to the impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date.
11. The concerned authority shall adjudicate the impugned SCN after considering the petitioner’s response and after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
12. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
Author Bio
