Banyan Tree Finserv LLP vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 89 Zone 8 Delhi & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Banyan Tree FinServ LLP, challenged an order dated March 22, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, which stemmed from a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated December 11, 2023. The petitioner contended that the impugned SCN was uploaded on the GST portal under the 'View Additional Notices & Orders' category, making it not easily accessible, whereas it should have been under the 'View Notices & Orders' heading. The revenue, represented by the Sales Tax Officer, argued that uploading the notice on the portal constituted sufficient service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The portal was subsequently redesigned to place 'View Notices' and 'View Additional Notices' tabs adjacent to each other under a single heading.

Held

The Court held that uploading a notice under the heading 'View Additional Notices & Orders' is not sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Court referred to its earlier decision in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. and the Madras High Court's decision in M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST). The reasoning was that the placement of notices under separate, potentially less visible, headings creates an issue with accessibility and proper intimation. Although the GST authorities have since redesigned the portal to address this by placing the 'View Notices' and 'View Additional Notices' tabs adjacent to each other under one heading, the impugned SCN was issued before this redesign. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the concerned authority for fresh adjudication. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a response to the SCN, and the authority was directed to provide a hearing.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a Show Cause Notice under the 'View Additional Notices & Orders' category on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby ensuring proper intimation to the taxpayer? The petitioner argued that the placement of the SCN under 'View Additional Notices & Orders' rendered it not easily accessible, and therefore, not proper service as contemplated by Section 169 of the CGST Act. They relied on the principle that notices should be readily available. The revenue contended that uploading any notice on the GST portal is sufficient compliance with the service requirements under Section 169 of the CGST Act, irrespective of the specific category it is placed under. They argued that the taxpayer is expected to check all available sections for communications.