2025 (6) TMI 347 - HC - GST

Seeking to quash the Document/Show Cause Notice along with its attachments - also seeking to quash the ex-parte order passed u/s 73 (9) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act - HELD THAT - While the document description on the portal is accurate the title of the document at page no.78 incorrectly reads Summary of Show Cause Notice . The appropriate title ought to have been Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Act . Furthermore a review of page no. 80 also shows that this is a summary of the Show Cause Notice wherein the tax heads have been mentioned and the declared tax has also been mentioned. After having perused the documents it is clear that any Assessee who is regularly using the GST portal clearly would know that the description on the same is stated as show cause notice and summary thereof. It is well settled that an incorrect description of a document by itself does not negate its substantive content. In such situations it is the substance of the document that must prevail over its form. The dashboard is clear the watermark with the word notice is clear and prominent and there can be no doubt that the document in question was a notice under Section 73 of the Act. A form DRC-01 is itself in the nature of a notice to show-cause. The said summary states that it is a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Act. The reminders which were given to the Petitioner also made it clear that the earlier document was a Show Cause Notice. Under such circumstances the plea that the document is not a Show Cause Notice is a completely frivolous and a specious plea being taken by the Petitioner to simply justify the non-filing of its reply. While there is no doubt that the Department ought to take adequate precaution to ensure that such errors of misdescription do not occur what appears to be merely an inadvertent error in the light of all the accompanying documents and circumstances cannot be the basis for seeking quashing. In view thereof this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order does not warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. In the totality of circumstances this Court is unable to accept the Petitioner s contention that the disputed document is merely a summary and not a Show Cause Notice solely on the ground of an inadvertent misdescription in the title. Conclusion - i) The document dated 19th November 2024 is a valid Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act despite the erroneous title. ii) The Petitioner was under a legal obligation to respond to the Show Cause Notice. iii) The impugned ex-parte order passed under Section 73(9) is sustainable and does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction. Petition disposed off.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

(a) Whether the document dated 19th November, 2024, described as 'Summary of Show Cause Notice' and issued in Form GST DRC-01 by the Department, constitutes a valid Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act)Rs.

(b) Whether the Petitioner was under any legal obligation to respond to the said document, given the alleged misdescription and absence of a formal Show Cause NoticeRs.

(c) Whether the impugned ex-parte order dated 19th February, 2025, passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act, can be sustained in view of the alleged invalidity of the Show Cause NoticeRs.

(d) Whether the principles laid down in the precedent decisions, particularly the judgment of the Gauhati High Court in Construction Catalysers and the Supreme Court decision in Metal Forgings, apply to the facts of the present caseRs.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Validity of the Document as a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

Section 73 of the CGST Act governs the determination of tax not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax credit wrongly availed or utilized. Sub-section (1) mandates issuance of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) to the registered person before initiating any proceedings. The Gauhati High Court in Construction Catalysers held that a 'Summary of Show Cause Notice' in Form GST DRC-01 cannot substitute the formal Show Cause Notice under Section 73(1). The Supreme Court in Metal Forgings emphasized that the form and substance of the notice must comply with statutory requirements.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Court examined the disputed document's title and contents. Although the title on page 78 erroneously reads 'Summary of Show Cause Notice', the dashboard on the GST portal clearly describes it as 'Show Cause Notice and summary thereof in Form GST DRC-01'. The document contains detailed tax heads, declared tax amounts, and a concluding paragraph proposing assessment under Section 73, inviting the Petitioner to reply within the stipulated time.

Key Evidence and Findings:

(i) The watermark on the document prominently states 'Notice', consistent with typical Show Cause Notices.

(ii) Three reminder notices issued by the Department refer to the disputed document as a 'Show Cause Notice' and highlight the Petitioner's failure to reply or appear.

(iii) The document's substantive content complies with the statutory purpose of a Show Cause Notice by informing the Petitioner of the proposed tax demand and providing an opportunity to respond.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Court held that the misdescription in the title does not negate the substantive character of the document as a Show Cause Notice. The form DRC-01 itself is recognized as a notice to show cause under the CGST regime. The accompanying reminders and the portal description reinforce this characterization.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The Petitioner argued that no valid Show Cause Notice was served, relying on the misdescription and the Gauhati High Court's decision in Construction Catalysers. The Court distinguished the present facts, noting that in Construction Catalysers, only a summary was issued without a formal SCN, whereas here the document and surrounding circumstances clearly constitute a SCN. The Court rejected the Petitioner's plea as frivolous and specious, aimed at evading the obligation to file a reply.

Conclusions:

The document dated 19th November, 2024, despite the erroneous title, is a valid Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act.

Issue (b): Obligation of the Petitioner to Respond to the Document

The Court observed that the document explicitly calls upon the Petitioner to reply within a stipulated time and that the Petitioner had not filed any response despite reminders. Given the document's substantive content and the statutory requirement of a Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner was legally obligated to respond.

The Petitioner's contention that no obligation arose due to the alleged misdescription was rejected as lacking merit. The Court emphasized that regular users of the GST portal would understand the document's nature from the dashboard and content.

Issue (c): Validity of the Impugned Ex-parte Order under Section 73(9)

The impugned order dated 19th February, 2025, was passed ex-parte, presumably due to the Petitioner's failure to respond to the Show Cause Notice. Since the Court upheld the validity of the Show Cause Notice and the Petitioner's obligation to reply, the ex-parte order was justified under Section 73(9), which empowers the authority to proceed if no reply is received.

The Court found no grounds to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction, noting that the Petitioner was granted liberty to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act with requisite pre-deposit within a specified time.

Issue (d): Applicability of Precedents

The Court carefully considered the Gauhati High Court's ruling in Construction Catalysers, which held that a mere summary cannot substitute a formal Show Cause Notice. However, the Court distinguished the present facts, emphasizing that the document here was more than a summary and was accompanied by reminders and a portal description clearly identifying it as a Show Cause Notice.

The Supreme Court precedent in Metal Forgings was cited to underscore that the substance of a notice prevails over form or misdescription.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"It is well settled that an incorrect description of a document, by itself, does not negate its substantive content. In such situations, it is the substance of the document that must prevail over its form."

"A form DRC-01 is itself in the nature of a notice to show-cause. The said summary states that it is a Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the Act. The reminders which were given to the Petitioner also made it clear that the earlier document was a Show Cause Notice."

"The plea that the document is not a Show Cause Notice is a completely frivolous and a specious plea being taken by the Petitioner, to simply justify the non-filing of its reply."

"While there is no doubt that the Department ought to take adequate precaution to ensure that such errors of misdescription do not occur, what appears to be merely an inadvertent error, in the light of all the accompanying documents and circumstances cannot be the basis for seeking quashing."

Final determinations:

(i) The document dated 19th November, 2024, is a valid Show Cause Notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act despite the erroneous title.

(ii) The Petitioner was under a legal obligation to respond to the Show Cause Notice.

(iii) The impugned ex-parte order passed under Section 73(9) is sustainable and does not warrant interference in writ jurisdiction.

(iv) The Petitioner is permitted to file an appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act within the stipulated time with requisite pre-deposit, which shall be adjudicated on merits without being barred by limitation.