2025 (5) TMI 132 - HC - GST

Challenge to order of determination of tax under Section 73 of the CGST Act 2017/ KSGST Act 2017 - time limitation - HELD THAT - In the instant case it is evident from Ext.P4 memorandum of appeal filed before the appellate authority that petitioner s specific case was that he was unaware about the show cause notice or even the order both of which were issued prior to January 2024. This Court has already held in the decision in Ramanattu Motor Corp s case 2025 (2) TMI 1091 - KERALA HIGH COURT that such uploading of notices and orders for the first time in the tab for additional notices and orders cannot amount to proper service of notice without appropriate instructions. In the instant case petitioner s contention was that the show cause notice as well as the order of determination of tax were both uploaded only in the tab for additional notices and orders and hence he was unaware of the order. The appeal filed by the petitioner could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. Therefore the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appellate authority should be directed to consider the appeal on merits treating the appeal as having been filed within time. Petition allowed.

Summary

The Kerala High Court, through Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, addressed a writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order of tax determination under Section 73 of the CGST/KSGST Act, 2017, and Ext.P7 appellate authority order dismissing the appeal for delay. The petitioner, a registered taxpayer, contended that the show cause notice and determination order were uploaded only under the "additional notices/orders" tab on the portal, without prior personal service or adequate notice, resulting in lack of proper service and opportunity of hearing.Relying on the precedent in *M/s. Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala & Ors*, this Court reaffirmed that uploading notices solely in the "additional notices/orders" tab does not constitute proper service. The Court held that the appeal dismissal on grounds of delay was improper given the petitioner's unawareness of the notices due to deficient service.Accordingly, the Court set aside Ext.P7 order and directed the appellate authority to consider the appeal on merits, "treating the appeal as having been filed within time," and to decide the matter expeditiously within three months. The writ petition was allowed to uphold principles of fair notice and due process.