Shoppers Supply Overseas Private Limited vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/ Avato Ward 8 And Anr
Original PDF →Facts
The Petitioner, Shoppers Supply Overseas Private Limited, challenged two orders: one dated December 21, 2023, passed by Respondent No. 1 under Section 73 of the CGST Act, and another dated November 13, 2024, passed by Respondent No. 2. These orders followed a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 29, 2023. The Petitioner contended that they never received the SCN, as it was allegedly uploaded under the 'Additional Notices' category on the GST portal, which was not easily accessible and thus escaped their attention. They argued that this did not constitute proper service of notice. The Petitioner sought an opportunity to respond to the SCN and receive a personal hearing.
Held
The Court held that the Petitioner deserved an opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice, following earlier decisions of the Court. The Court found that uploading the SCN under the 'Additional Notices' category was not sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act. The reasoning was based on previous judgments of the same High Court, specifically citing Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II and ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, which had rejected similar contentions by the revenue. The ratio decidendi is that notices placed in less accessible categories on the GST portal do not constitute proper service under Section 169. Consequently, the impugned orders dated December 21, 2023, and November 13, 2024, were set aside. The matter was remanded back to the concerned Department for fresh adjudication. The Petitioner was granted liberty to file a response to the SCN within 30 days, and the authority was directed to adjudicate the SCN after considering the response and affording a personal hearing.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of a Show Cause Notice under the 'Additional Notices' category on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service of notice in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby providing adequate intimation to the taxpayer? The Petitioner argued that uploading the SCN under 'Additional Notices,' which was not easily accessible, did not amount to sufficient service as per Section 169 of the CGST Act. They relied on the Division Bench judgment in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II and ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that such placement of notices was not sufficient service. The Respondents contended that in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act, uploading a notice on the portal is sufficient compliance for intimating the taxpayer.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 169
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R %
2025 CM APPL. 18972/2025 (Exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
The Petitioner has approached this Court challenging the Order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Respondent No.1 under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “CGST Act”) and the Order dated 13.11.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 pursuant to a Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023. 2. Learned Counsel for Petitioner submits that Petitioner never received the Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2023 and accordingly could not respond This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:40:09 to the same. He submits that the Show Cause Notices are normally uploaded on the portal under the heading of ‘Notices’, however, in the instant case it appears that the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on the portal in the category of ‘Additional Notices’ which were not easily accessible, and accordingly skipped the attention of the Petitioner. He prays that one opportunity be granted to the Petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice and an opportunity of a personal hearing be also given. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II, [W.P. (C) No.9261/2024 dated 10th July, 2024] wherein it was held that uploading of notices under the heading of ‘Additional Notices’ would not be sufficient service of notice in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act. He further relies on the judgment of ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, [W.P. (C) No. 6758/2024 dated 10th May, 2024].
Learned Counsel for Respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits that in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, uploading of a notice on the portal is sufficient compliance with regard to intimation to the taxpayer.
The relevant portion of the judgment, Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II (Supra) reads as under:
“3. The impugned SCN was uploaded on the portal in the category of ‘Additional Notices’ which the petitioner claims was not easily accessible. It is contended that the show cause notices were required to be placed under the heading of ‘Notices’ but the same was not done. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:40:09 4. Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue involved in the present petition is covered by earlier decisions of this Court, including in ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India: [2024] 163 taxmann.com 17 (Delhi).
In the said decision, this Court had rejected the contention that uploading of the notices under the heading ‘Additional Notices’ would be sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below :- “4. Learned counsel for respondent submits that in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, uploading of a notice on the portal is sufficient compliance with regard to intimation to the taxpayer.
We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel, reference may be had to the judgment of the High Court of Madras in W.P. No. 26457/2023, titled M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST) dated 11-9-2023, wherein the High Court of Madras has noticed that communications are placed under the heading of “View Notices and Orders” and “View Additional Notices and Orders”. The Madras High Court had directed the respondents to address the issue arising out of posting of information under two separate headings. As per the petitioner, the Menu “View Additional Notices and Orders” were under the heading of “User Services” and not under the heading “View Notices and Orders”.
The GST Authorities had addressed the issue and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:40:09 had re-designed the portal to ensure that ‘View Notices’ tab and ‘View Additional Notices’ tab were placed under one heading. The impugned SCN was issued before the portal was re-designed.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.
The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to adjudicate the SCN afresh. The petitioner is at liberty to file a response to the impugned SCN within a period oftwo weeks from date.
The concerned authority shall adjudicate the impugned SCN after considering the petitioner’s response and after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. ”
After having perused the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the view that following the earlier decisions passed by this Court, the Petitioner herein also deserves to be given an opportunity to reply to the Show Cause Notice.
Accordingly, in the facts of this case, the Impugned Orders dated 21.12.2023 and 13.11.2024 are set aside. The matter is remanded back to the concerned Department for fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. The Petitioner is at liberty to file a response to the impugned Show Cause Notice within a period of 30 days.
The concerned authority shall adjudicate the impugned Show Cause Notice after considering the Petitioner’s response and after affording the Petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
With these observations, the petition is disposed of, along with This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:40:09 pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J APRIL 1, 2025 S. Zakir This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/07/2025 at 23:40:09
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.