9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 549 - HC - GSTService of SCN - Challenge to N/N. 9/2023- Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 and 56/2023- Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 - challenge to SCN on the ground that they were uploaded on the Additional Notices tab and did not come to the knowledge of the Petitioner - HELD THAT - This Court in Satish Chand Mittal (Trade Name National Rubber Products) vs. Sales Tax Officer SGST Ward 25-Zone 1 2024 (9) TMI 757 - DELHI HIGH COURT and Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officers Class II/Avato Ward 83 Anr 2024 (12) TMI 1400 - DELHI HIGH COURT under similar circumstances has remanded back the matter to ensure the Noticee/Petitioner get a fair opportunity to be heard. This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner deserves a proper opportunity to file a reply and to be heard on merits. In fact Accordingly the impugned orders dated 9th March 2024 and 2nd December 2023 are accordingly set aside. Let the consolidated replies to both the Show Cause Notices dated 31st August 2021 and 26th July 2021 be filed by the Petitioner within a period of 30 days. Petition disposed off.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter include:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Validity of Service of Show Cause Notices Uploaded under 'Additional Notices' Tab Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The DGST/CGST Act, 2017 mandates issuance of Show Cause Notices and opportunities for the affected party to respond before passing any order under Section 73. The principles of natural justice require that the notice must be properly served and brought to the notice of the party to enable a fair hearing. The Court relied on its earlier decisions in Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer and Anant Wire Industries v. Sales Tax Officers, where similar issues arose regarding the accessibility of notices uploaded under the 'Additional Notices' tab on the GST portal. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court recognized that the Petitioner contended non-receipt of the SCNs because they were uploaded under a tab not readily visible or accessible, thereby depriving the Petitioner of knowledge and opportunity to respond. The Court noted that this procedural lapse effectively denied the Petitioner a fair chance to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice. Key Evidence and Findings: The Petitioner's claim that the SCNs, reminders, and impugned orders were unsigned and were not brought to their attention was accepted. The Court also observed that the GST portal interface had been modified subsequently to place the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab adjacent to the 'Notices & Orders' tab, addressing the accessibility issue. Application of Law to Facts: Applying the principles from prior judgments, the Court held that the SCNs were not effectively served, and the Petitioner was entitled to a fresh opportunity to respond. The Court emphasized that proper service and notice are fundamental to the validity of any adjudicatory process under the DGST/CGST Act. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Respondents conceded the issue regarding the placement of the notices on the portal but sought to uphold the orders. The Court, however, prioritized the Petitioner's right to a fair hearing over procedural technicalities. Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed that the Petitioner be given an opportunity to file consolidated replies to the SCNs and be heard afresh. Issue 2: Validity of the Impugned Notifications Issued by CBIC Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Petitioner challenged Notification Nos. 9/2023 and 56/2023-Central Tax issued by the CBIC. However, the Court noted that the validity of these notifications was already under consideration before the Supreme Court in a separate proceeding. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Given the pendency of the Supreme Court's decision, the Court refrained from adjudicating on the challenge to these notifications in the present petitions, deferring to the higher forum's jurisdiction. Conclusion: The challenge to the impugned notifications was held to be subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings and was not decided in the present matter. Issue 3: Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice in Adjudication Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 73 of the DGST/CGST Act requires an opportunity to be heard before passing an order. Prior rulings emphasize the necessity of personal hearings and proper communication of notices to ensure fairness. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court found that since the Petitioner had no knowledge of the SCNs due to improper service, the opportunity to be heard was effectively denied. The Court reiterated the need for a comprehensive adjudication process where all grounds raised by the Petitioner are considered after giving a proper hearing. Key Evidence and Findings: The Court referred to the Petitioner's inability to respond or appear for personal hearings scheduled on 17.10.2023 and 30.11.2023. The absence of signed notices further undermined the procedural integrity. Application of Law to Facts: The Court ordered that the Petitioner be allowed to file consolidated replies within 30 days and that the adjudicating authority pass a common order after considering all grounds, thereby ensuring procedural fairness. Conclusion: The Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication in accordance with principles of natural justice. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Court held that: "The Petitioner deserves a proper opportunity to file a reply and to be heard on merits." The Court established the core principle that effective service of notices is indispensable to the validity of proceedings under the DGST/CGST Act and that mere uploading of notices under a less accessible tab on the GST portal does not constitute valid service. It was further held that: "The adjudication shall take place in a comprehensive manner before the Assistant Commissioner, Ward-204, Zone-11, Delhi... The adjudicating authority shall pass one common order after considering all the grounds raised by the Petitioner in its reply to the Show Cause Notices." Finally, the Court preserved the principle that challenges to statutory notifications pending before the Supreme Court should not be decided by the High Court to avoid conflicting rulings.
|
