9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (4) TMI 1640 - HC - GSTChallenge to validity of N/Ns. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31th March 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 - SCN was not in the knowledge of the Petitioner hence no reply was filed - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - This Court is of the opinion that the delay in filing the appeal deserves to be condoned and the appeal deserves to be heard on merits. The Appeal is restored to its original number before the Appellate Authority - Petition disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
- Whether the challenge to Notification Nos. 09/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 is maintainable before this Court, considering that the Supreme Court is seized of a similar challenge. - Whether the Petitioner had knowledge of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on 23rd December 2023, which was uploaded on the 'additional notices' tab of the GST portal, and whether the Petitioner was afforded an opportunity to reply or be heard before the adjudicating order dated 3rd April 2024 was passed. - Whether the appeal filed by the Petitioner before the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, challenging the order dated 3rd April 2024, was barred by limitation. - Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned in light of the Petitioner's claim of non-receipt of the SCN and lack of knowledge thereof. - The correctness of the practice of uploading notices on the 'additional notices' tab of the GST portal and its impact on the principles of natural justice and fair hearing. 2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Challenge to Notifications Nos. 09/2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax The Court noted that the validity of these Notifications was already under consideration before the Supreme Court in S.L.P No. 4240/2025. The Court referred to its earlier order in a lead matter where it was held that any challenge to these Notifications would be subject to the Supreme Court's decision. Therefore, the Court refrained from adjudicating on the validity of the Notifications themselves and deferred to the higher forum's determination. Knowledge and Service of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) The SCN was issued on 23rd December 2023 and uploaded on the GST portal under the 'additional notices' tab. The Petitioner claimed ignorance of the SCN and thus did not file a reply. The adjudicating order dated 3rd April 2024 was passed without hearing the Petitioner or providing an opportunity to respond. The Court examined precedents where similar issues arose regarding notices uploaded under the 'additional notices' tab. It highlighted prior decisions including:
In particular, the Court relied on Satish Chand Mittal (supra), where it was held that uploading notices on the 'additional notices' tab did not constitute proper service, as parties were unlikely to have knowledge of such notices. The Court quoted: "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... Possibly, the petitioner did not have access to the Notices as they were projected on the GST Portal under the tab 'Additional Notices & Orders'... The present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside." The Court emphasized that proper notice and opportunity to be heard are fundamental to the principles of natural justice and that mere uploading on a less conspicuous tab on the portal cannot be equated with valid service. Limitation Bar on Appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act, 2017 The Appellate Authority had dismissed the Petitioner's appeal filed on 2nd September 2024 against the order dated 3rd April 2024 on the ground of limitation. The relevant statutory provisions were:
The Appellate Authority found the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period and no sufficient cause was shown for condonation of delay. However, the Court noted that since the Petitioner had no knowledge of the SCN due to improper service, the delay in filing the appeal was attributable to lack of notice. The Court held that this constituted sufficient cause to condone the delay and ordered restoration of the appeal to its original number for adjudication on merits. Application of Law to Facts and Treatment of Competing Arguments The Court balanced the statutory timelines for filing appeals with the fundamental right to be heard. While limitation periods are to be strictly adhered to, the Court recognized that limitation cannot be enforced rigidly where a party was denied knowledge of the proceeding itself. The Respondents argued that the appeal was time-barred and the notices were properly uploaded on the portal. The Court rejected this argument in light of the precedents that uploading on the 'additional notices' tab does not amount to proper service. The Court also noted that the portal interface was subsequently modified to place 'Additional Notices & Orders' adjacent to the 'Notices & Orders' tab, implicitly acknowledging the problem. The Court directed the Appellate Authority to consider the Petitioner's appeal on merits, after affording a proper opportunity to reply to the SCN and be heard. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "The notice if uploaded on the additional notices tab of the portal, the same would not be proper in as much as the party would not have even acquired knowledge of the same." "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." "In view of the above provisions and facts, the present appeal is time-barred and hence rejected." (Appellate Authority's order, set aside by the Court) Core principles established include:
Final determinations:
|
