Subhash Chand Goel (Proprietor Of M/S. Subhash Chand Goel And Co.) vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward 62, Zone 5, Delhi & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Subhash Chand Goel, proprietor of M/s. Subhash Chand Goel and Co., challenged an order dated 29.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This order followed a show cause notice (SCN) dated 14.09.2023. The petitioner contended that the impugned SCN was uploaded on the GST portal under the category ‘View Additional Notices & Orders’, which was not easily accessible, and argued that it should have been placed under the heading ‘View Notices & Orders’. The petitioner claimed this improper placement constituted a failure in proper service of the notice.

Held

The Court held that uploading of a notice under the heading ‘Additional Notices’ is not sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court referred to its earlier decision in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors., which in turn relied on the Madras High Court's observation in M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST). The Madras High Court had noted that communications were placed under two separate headings, ‘View Notices and Orders’ and ‘View Additional Notices and Orders’, and directed the respondents to address this issue. The Delhi High Court acknowledged that the GST Authorities had subsequently re-designed the portal to place these tabs adjacent to each other under one heading. However, the impugned SCN was issued before this re-design. 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 opportunity.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a show cause notice under the heading ‘View Additional Notices & Orders’ on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, when the petitioner claims it was not easily accessible and should have been under ‘View Notices & Orders’? The Petitioner argued that the placement of the SCN under ‘View Additional Notices & Orders’ was not proper service as per Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, citing accessibility issues and the established practice of notices being under ‘View Notices & Orders’. The Petitioner relied on the High Court of Madras decision in M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST). The Respondent (Revenue) contended that uploading the notice on the portal is sufficient compliance with Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.