2025 (5) TMI 733 - HC - GST

Invalid service of SCN - uploaded under the tab Additional Notices Orders of the GST portal instead of the designated Notices Orders tab - Violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that the proceedings were initiated and the order dated 16.12.2023 was uploaded under the tab Additional Notices Orders of the GST portal instead of Notices Orders tab. The issue in hand is no more res integra and the same has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited 2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT and Tasneef Ahmad Mirza 2024 (10) TMI 1448 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT . The impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner Grade - 2 (Appeal) - 3 Saharanpur as well as the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax Saharanpur are hereby quashed - matter is remanded to the authority concerned to adjudicate the matter afresh - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

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

• Whether the impugned order dated 16.12.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, was validly served upon the petitioner when it was uploaded under the tab 'Additional Notices & Orders' of the GST portal instead of the designated 'Notices & Orders' tab;
• Whether the presumption of deemed service of the order dated 16.12.2023 applies in the present case;
• Whether the appellate authority had the power under section 107 of the CGST Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the impugned order;
• The legality of dismissal of the appeal by the Additional Commissioner on the ground of delay without condonation;
• The procedural correctness and compliance with principles of natural justice in issuing notices and passing orders under the CGST Act in this case.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Service of the Impugned Order (16.12.2023) via GST Portal Upload

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The CGST Act mandates issuance and service of notices and orders in a prescribed manner. The GST portal is the designated platform for communication; however, the specific tab or section where orders are uploaded is crucial for effective notice. The Court relied heavily on the Division Bench rulings in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited and Tasneef Ahmad Mirza, which held that uploading an order under an incorrect tab on the GST portal does not constitute valid service.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the impugned order was uploaded under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab rather than the 'Notices & Orders' tab, which is the recognized section for such communications. This misplacement resulted in non-communication of the order to the petitioner. The Court emphasized that mere uploading on the portal cannot be equated with valid service unless it is done in the prescribed manner that ensures the recipient's awareness.

Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner's uncontested submission that notices and show cause notices issued under sections 61 and 73(1) of the CGST Act were not served was accepted. The petitioner was unaware of the impugned order until much later, confirming the lack of effective communication.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principle that service by electronic means must be effective and must reasonably bring the order to the knowledge of the party. Uploading under an incorrect tab failed this test, and thus the limitation period for appeal could not start from the date of such uploading.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State's contention that uploading on the portal amounts to deemed service was rejected based on binding precedents and the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The Court held that the order dated 16.12.2023 was not validly served on the petitioner by uploading it under the wrong tab, and the presumption of deemed service did not apply.

Issue 2: Power of the Appellate Authority to Condone Delay under Section 107 of the CGST Act

Relevant Legal Framework: Section 107 of the CGST Act deals with appeals to the appellate authority and the conditions for filing such appeals, including limitation periods and condonation of delay.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The appellate authority rejected the petitioner's appeal on the ground of delay and stated it had no power to condone the delay under section 107. The Court did not specifically delve into the statutory interpretation of section 107 but implicitly accepted that the rejection was premised on the non-availability of condonation power to the authority.

Key Evidence and Findings: The petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay upon becoming aware of the order. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the initial order was not validly served, the limitation period for filing appeal had not commenced, and the petitioner's delay was not attributable to any negligence on its part. Therefore, the appellate authority's refusal to condone delay was unjustified in the circumstances.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State's reliance on the absence of condonation power was overridden by the fundamental principle of fair notice and natural justice.

Conclusion: The dismissal of the appeal on the ground of delay without condonation was improper given the invalidity of the original service.

Issue 3: Procedural Compliance and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice

Relevant Legal Framework: The CGST Act and allied procedural rules require that notices and orders be served in a manner that affords the affected party a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court underscored that the petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to respond to the show cause notices and impugned order due to failure in proper service. This violated the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.

Key Evidence and Findings: Multiple notices issued under sections 61 and 73(1) were not served. The petitioner was unaware of the order until much later, precluding meaningful participation in the proceedings.

Application of Law to Facts: The Court held that the impugned orders could not stand as the petitioner was denied the opportunity to present its case, necessitating remand for fresh adjudication with proper service and notice.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The State did not dispute the non-service but maintained the validity of the orders. The Court rejected this stance in favor of procedural propriety.

Conclusion: The Court directed fresh adjudication with proper notice and opportunity to the petitioner, ensuring compliance with natural justice.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court quashed both the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 and the appellate order dated 18.11.2024, holding:

"It is not in dispute that the proceedings were initiated and the order dated16.12.2023 was uploaded under the tab 'Additional Notices & Orders' of the GST portal, instead of 'Notices & Orders' tab."

"The issue in hand is no more res integra and the same has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited (supra) and Tasneef Ahmad Mirza (supra)."

"In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the case as well as the law laid down by this Court in the cases cited above, the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Grade - 2 (Appeal) - 3, Saharanpur as well as the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Saharanpur are hereby quashed."

Core principles established include:

• Valid service of notices and orders under the CGST Act via the GST portal requires uploading under the correct designated tab to ensure effective