Naeem Akhtar Khan Proprietor Super Tyre House vs. Commissioner Of Delhi Goods And Service Tax & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Naeem Akhtar Khan, proprietor of Super Tyre House, filed a writ petition challenging a final order of assessment under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that they were denied an opportunity of hearing and a chance to respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The SCN, issued on December 14, 2023, was placed in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GSTN portal, which the petitioner claims prevented them from accessing and responding to it. This occurred prior to functional amendments made to the GSTN portal on January 16, 2024. The respondents, Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Service Tax & Anr., conceded that the SCN's placement deprived the petitioner of a response opportunity.

Held

The Court held that the placement of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GSTN portal, prior to the functional amendments on January 16, 2024, indeed deprived the writ petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to respond. The Court found this to be a conceded position by the respondents. Consequently, the final order of assessment dated March 20, 2024, was quashed. The Court allowed the writ petition. However, this decision was made without prejudice to the rights of the respondents to initiate fresh assessment proceedings. These new proceedings are to commence from the date of issuance of the original SCN and must be concluded with due expedition and in accordance with the law. The ratio decidendi is that a procedural defect in serving a SCN, which deprives the assessee of a fair opportunity to respond, renders subsequent assessment orders invalid, necessitating a fresh start to the proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the placement of the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated December 14, 2023, in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GSTN portal, prior to the functional amendments on January 16, 2024, deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to respond, thereby vitiating the subsequent final order of assessment passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the SCN was not properly served or communicated, as it was placed in an "Additional Notices and Orders" tab, which effectively denied them a chance to be heard and respond to the allegations leading to the final assessment order. They relied on the principle that due process requires proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. Revenue's Contention: The respondents, on instructions, conceded that the manner in which the SCN was placed in the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab deprived the writ petitioner of a chance to respond. They agreed that the matter should be remitted for fresh consideration.