2025 (5) TMI 146 - HC - GST

Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued on multiple addresses - Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - original SCN not received and also not uploaded on the GST portal - confusion caused qua the addresses - HELD THAT - It is made clear that if the email is received and the personal hearing is not attended no further opportunity shall be granted to the Petitioner Federation. Only one opportunity is being granted in the unique facts of this case. The limitation in respect of passing of the order pursuant to the SCN shall not apply in the facts of this case as well. The Petitioner is directed to get all its details corrected on the GST portal within 15 days failing which the Department would not be blamed for future notices being sent at the wrong address. Insofar as the SCN having been issued by the Commissionerate West in view of the East Patel Nagar address the Petitioner gives up its challenge if any to the jurisdiction. The said show cause notice shall now be adjudicated by the Commissionerate North in terms of the Karol Bagh address of the Petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending applications if any are also disposed of.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

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

(a) Whether the Petitioner received the Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued under Section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, in a timely and proper manner, given the existence of multiple addresses associated with the Petitioner;

(b) Whether the impugned Order-In-Original dated 30th January 2025, passed without personal hearing due to non-receipt of the SCN, can be sustained;

(c) Whether the jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the matter lies with the Commissionerate West or Commissionerate North, considering the address discrepancies;

(d) Whether the limitation period for passing the order pursuant to the SCN should be strictly applied in the facts of this case;

(e) What procedural safeguards and remedies should be afforded to the Petitioner given the confusion in addresses and the consequent denial of opportunity for personal hearing.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue (a): Proper receipt of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and address discrepancies

The legal framework governing issuance and service of SCNs under the CGST Act, 2017 requires that the notice be served at the correct address of the person to ensure the opportunity of being heard. The Petitioner contended that the SCN issued on 15th November 2022 was received only on 2nd March 2023 because it was sent to an incorrect address (East Patel Nagar), whereas the current and correct address is at Karol Bagh.

The Court noted that three addresses were being used by the Department for the Petitioner: (i) Karol Bagh, (ii) East Patel Nagar, and (iii) Prashant Vihar. The Petitioner submitted that the East Patel Nagar address appeared inadvertently in a form filed in 2019 to update director details, which was not their current address. The Department argued that the form itself contained the East Patel Nagar address, implying that the notice was sent correctly as per records.

The Court observed that the confusion caused by multiple addresses led to the SCN not being received in a timely manner and the personal hearing notices not being served. The Petitioner had no opportunity to appear and argue the matter before the Department. This failure to serve the SCN properly violated the principles of natural justice, which require that a party be given an opportunity to be heard.

Issue (b): Validity of the impugned Order-In-Original passed without personal hearing

The impugned order dated 30th January 2025 was passed without the Petitioner having an opportunity to be heard, as the personal hearing notices were not served due to address confusion. The Court emphasized that the right to a personal hearing is a fundamental procedural safeguard under the CGST Act and the principles of natural justice.

Given that the SCN was only received belatedly, the Petitioner was deprived of a fair opportunity to present its case. The Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order to uphold the Petitioner's right to be heard. The Court directed that a fresh personal hearing notice be issued and served at the correct email addresses and uploaded on the GST portal.

Issue (c): Jurisdictional authority to adjudicate the matter

The SCN was issued by Commissionerate West based on the East Patel Nagar address. However, the Petitioner's correct address is at Karol Bagh, which falls under Commissionerate North. The Petitioner waived any challenge to jurisdiction in light of the address correction.

The Court ordered that the adjudication of the SCN be transferred to Commissionerate North in accordance with the Karol Bagh address. This ensures that the matter is heard by the proper jurisdictional authority, maintaining procedural propriety.

Issue (d): Application of limitation period for passing the order

Ordinarily, limitation periods prescribed under the CGST Act for passing orders pursuant to SCNs are strictly enforced to ensure timely resolution. However, the Court recognized the unique facts of this case, where the Petitioner did not receive the SCN in time due to no fault of their own but due to departmental confusion over addresses.

The Court held that the limitation period would not apply strictly in this case, allowing the Department to adjudicate the matter afresh after providing the Petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing. This approach balances procedural fairness with the need for finality.

Issue (e): Procedural safeguards and directions for future compliance

The Court directed that the personal hearing notice be served to the Petitioner at two specified email addresses and uploaded on the GST portal. It was made clear that only one opportunity for personal hearing would be granted, and failure to attend would foreclose further chances.

The Petitioner was also directed to update and correct all its details on the GST portal within 15 days to prevent future miscommunication. The Court warned that failure to do so would relieve the Department from responsibility for notices sent to incorrect addresses.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The confusion which has been caused qua the addresses has ensured that the personal hearing notices have not been served upon the Petitioner."

"The Petitioner Federation being a milk producers' society, it has not had an opportunity to personally appear and argue its matter before the Department, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned order dated 30th January, 2025."

"Let the personal hearing notice be now served upon the Petitioner at the following email address: [email protected] and [email protected] and the same shall also be uploaded on the portal."

"If the email is received and the personal hearing is not attended, no further opportunity shall be granted to the Petitioner Federation. Only one opportunity is being granted in the unique facts of this case."

"The limitation in respect of passing of the order pursuant to the SCN, shall not apply in the facts of this case as well."

"The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms."

The Court established the core principle that proper service of SCNs and opportunity for personal hearing are essential requirements under the CGST Act and principles of natural justice. Failure to serve notices at the correct address resulting in denial of hearing mandates setting aside of impugned orders. Jurisdiction must correspond to the address of the Petitioner to ensure procedural propriety. The limitation period for passing orders can be relaxed in exceptional circumstances where the Petitioner was deprived of the opportunity to be heard due to departmental errors.

In conclusion, the Court set aside the impugned order, directed fresh personal hearing notices to be served at the correct address, transferred jurisdiction to the appropriate Commissionerate, and allowed the Department to adjudicate afresh without limitation constraints, provided the Petitioner is given a single opportunity to be heard. The Petitioner was also mandated to update its details on the GST portal to avoid future issues.