Anant Wire Industries vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 83 & Anr.

Held

The Court held that uploading of a Show Cause Notice under the category of 'Additional Notices and Orders' on the GST portal does not constitute sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, especially when the Petitioner has filed an affidavit confirming non-receipt. Following its previous decisions in Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II and ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India, the Court found that the Petitioner deserved an opportunity to reply to the SCN. The impugned order dated 21st February, 2024, was set aside. The matter was remanded back to the concerned authority for fresh adjudication. The Petitioner was granted 30 days to file a reply to the SCN dated 5th September, 2023, after which a hearing would be afforded, and an order passed within three months from the date of the hearing. The Court explicitly followed the principle that notices should be placed under the main 'Notices' heading for proper service.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s Anant Wire Industries, challenged an order dated 21st February, 2024, passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO, Ward 83. The challenge was based on the assertion that the Petitioner never received the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 5th September, 2023, which preceded the impugned order. The Petitioner contended that the SCN was uploaded on the GST portal under the category of 'Additional Notices and Orders' and was therefore not effectively served. An affidavit was filed confirming non-receipt of the SCN and the order on the registered email ID or physically. The Petitioner relied on previous judgments of the Delhi High Court concerning similar issues of notice service.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading of a Show Cause Notice under the category of 'Additional Notices and Orders' on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, when the Petitioner claims non-receipt? Petitioner's Arguments: The Petitioner argued that uploading the SCN under 'Additional Notices' did not amount to proper 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, which held that such uploading is not sufficient service, and ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India. The Petitioner asserted that they did not receive the SCN either on their registered email or physically, supported by an affidavit. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue or State. However, it notes the Revenue's submission in a cited case (ACE Cardiopathy Solutions) that uploading a notice on the portal is sufficient compliance with intimation to the taxpayer under Section 169 of the CGST Act.