Positra Packaging Private Limited vs. The Commissioner Appeals & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Positra Packaging Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 13, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) for the period July 2017 to March 2018. This order was issued pursuant to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 4, 2023. The petitioner contended that the SCN escaped their attention as it was displayed on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They argued that they did not have sufficient opportunity to respond to the SCN, relying on previous High Court decisions. However, it was noted that the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab was adjacent to the 'Notices and Orders' tab, both under a common umbrella. The petitioner also stated that the statutory appeal period had expired, rendering that remedy unavailable.

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's contention that they did not have sufficient opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) due to its placement on the GST portal. While noting that the petitioner had an equally efficacious remedy by way of a statutory appeal, the Court was informed that the time for filing such an appeal had expired. Considering these circumstances, the Court deemed it appropriate to dispose of the petition by directing the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order within two weeks from the date of the order. The appellate authority was directed to consider the appeal without being influenced by the delay in filing. This direction was issued with the concurrence of the respondents' counsel. The Court did not decide on the merits of the SCN or the impugned order itself, focusing solely on providing a procedural remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated September 4, 2023, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, considering its placement on the GST portal. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they did not have sufficient opportunity to respond to the SCN because it was displayed under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal, which they claimed escaped their attention. They relied on the decisions in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/AVATO Ward 52 to support their claim of insufficient opportunity. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue regarding the petitioner's opportunity to respond. However, it notes that the SCN was placed on the portal after configuration to address issues raised in the cited cases, and the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab was located next to the 'Notices and Orders' tab, both under a common tab.