2025 (4) TMI 1633 - HC - GST

Service of SCN - SCN did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner as the same was uploaded by the Respondent No. 1-Department on the additional notices tab - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In view of the fact that the Petitioner did not get an opportunity to file a reply to the SCN this Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner ought to be afforded an opportunity to file a reply. Let the reply to the SCN be now filed within a period of 30 days. The Adjudicating Authority shall proceed and pass order with respect to the SCN after affording a hearing to the Petitioner. The demand order is set aside - petition disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:

• Whether the show cause notice (SCN) dated 9th December 2023 was duly served upon the Petitioner in accordance with the applicable procedural requirements under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) regime.
• Whether the Petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity to respond to the SCN and participate in the adjudication process, including personal hearings before the Adjudicating Authority.
• The validity and legality of the demand order dated 29th March 2024 passed pursuant to the SCN, particularly in light of alleged non-receipt of the SCN and procedural lapses.
• The adequacy of the Department's method of communication, specifically the uploading of notices under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab on the GST portal, and whether such practice complies with principles of natural justice and statutory requirements.
• The applicability and binding nature of precedents from coordinate benches concerning similar procedural issues relating to service of notices and opportunity of hearing under the GST framework.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Service of Show Cause Notice

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The GST law mandates that notices and orders must be served on the concerned party in a manner that ensures actual knowledge and opportunity to respond. The principle of natural justice requires that a party must be given notice in a manner that is reasonably calculated to inform them. Recent decisions of the Delhi High Court in cases such as Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer and M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India have addressed the issue of service of SCNs via the GST portal, particularly focusing on the accessibility and visibility of notices uploaded under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the SCN dated 9th December 2023 was uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab, which was not prominently placed or easily accessible to the Petitioner at the relevant time. The Court noted that the Department admitted that the practice of uploading notices under this tab was rectified only from January 2024 onwards, after the issuance of the impugned SCN.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Department's counsel conceded that prior to January 2024, notices were uploaded in a manner that may not have been adequately visible or accessible to the noticees. The Petitioner's claim of non-receipt of the SCN was corroborated by the fact that the SCN and subsequent reminders were unsigned and uploaded in a less accessible section of the portal.

Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, the Court held that mere uploading of the SCN in a non-prominent tab without additional means of communication (such as email or physical service) did not amount to valid service. This procedural lapse deprived the Petitioner of the opportunity to respond or appear for hearings.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that the SCN was uploaded on the portal and that the issue had been rectified post-January 2024. However, the Court emphasized that the impugned SCN predated this correction and thus the Petitioner's grievance was justified.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the SCN was not validly served on the Petitioner and thus the subsequent demand order premised on the SCN was liable to be set aside.

Issue 2: Opportunity to be Heard and Fair Adjudication

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The right to be heard is a fundamental principle under administrative law and is enshrined in the GST procedural rules. The Court relied on precedents including Satish Chand Mittal and Neelgiri Machinery cases, where similar procedural infirmities led to setting aside of orders and remand for fresh adjudication.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the Petitioner had no opportunity to file a reply to the SCN or appear for personal hearings scheduled on 17th October 2023 and 30th November 2023, as the notices for such hearings were not properly communicated. The absence of signed notices and the procedural irregularity in communication further compounded the denial of opportunity.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Petitioner's assertion of non-receipt of hearing notices was uncontested, and the Department acknowledged the procedural lacuna. The Court also noted that the hearing notices were merely uploaded on the portal without any email intimation to the Petitioner.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that orders should not be passed in default without affording the party a fair chance to be heard. The absence of proper communication of hearing notices violated this principle, rendering the demand order unsustainable.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department contended that the Petitioner could have accessed the portal to receive notices. The Court rejected this argument given the lack of prominence of the tab and absence of email communication, which is essential for ensuring actual notice.

Conclusion: The Court held that the Petitioner must be given an opportunity to file replies and be heard afresh before any order is passed.

Issue 3: Validity of Demand Order and Remedial Directions

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Demand orders under GST must be based on validly issued and served SCNs and after affording the party an opportunity of hearing. Precedents cited include Satish Chand Mittal and Neelgiri Machinery, where demand orders were set aside for failure to comply with these procedural requirements.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that the demand order dated 29th March 2024 was passed without affording the Petitioner a fair opportunity to respond to the SCN or appear for hearings. The Court also noted that the impugned demand orders dated 23rd April 2024 and 5th December 2023 were set aside on similar grounds.

Key Evidence and Findings: The absence of reply from the Petitioner and the procedural irregularities in communication were key factors in invalidating the demand order.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that procedural fairness is mandatory in tax adjudication and that failure to comply vitiates the demand order.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department's argument that notices were uploaded on the portal was insufficient to cure the procedural defect. The Court mandated that hearing notices must also be emailed to ensure effective communication.

Conclusion: The demand order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication after proper service of notices and opportunity to be heard.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court held:

"It is clear that the matter is fully covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in Satish Chand Mittal (supra). The Court therein has observed as under: '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... 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'... In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. 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.'"

Core principles established include:

• Uploading of notices on the GST portal under a non-prominent tab without additional communication does not constitute valid service.
• The right to be heard and fair opportunity to respond to show cause notices is fundamental and must be strictly adhered to in GST proceedings.
• Demand orders passed without proper service of SCNs and opportunity of hearing are liable to be set aside.
• Departments must ensure that hearing notices are not only uploaded on the portal but also emailed to the concerned parties to ensure effective communication.

Final determinations on each issue were that the SCN was not validly served, the Petitioner was denied the opportunity to be heard, and the demand order was consequently set aside. The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to afford the Petitioner an opportunity to file replies and be heard, with directions to ensure proper communication of notices both via the portal and email.