Kamla Vohra vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato Ward 52

Facts

The petitioner, Kamla Vohra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act. This order was based on a show cause notice (SCN) dated 10.12.2023. The petitioner claimed she never received the SCN, and therefore, did not file a reply or appear before the authorities. She contended that the SCN was uploaded on the GST portal under the category of ‘Additional Notices,’ which she found not easily accessible, and argued it should have been placed under the heading ‘Notices.’ The SCN was issued before the GST portal was redesigned to consolidate ‘View Notices’ and ‘View Additional Notices’ under a single heading.

Held

The Court held that uploading a show cause notice under the heading ‘Additional Notices’ on the GST portal does not constitute sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017. The Court referred to its earlier decision in ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India and a Madras High Court judgment in M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), which highlighted the issue of information being posted under separate headings ('View Notices and Orders' and 'View Additional Notices and Orders'). The Court noted that the GST authorities had subsequently redesigned the portal to address this. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the concerned authority. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a response to the SCN, and the authority was directed to adjudicate afresh after considering the response and affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether uploading a show cause notice under the heading ‘Additional Notices’ on the GST portal constitutes sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017, when the petitioner claims non-receipt and argues it was not easily accessible. Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the SCN was not received because it was uploaded under ‘Additional Notices,’ which was not easily accessible, and argued that such notices should be placed under the heading ‘Notices.’ Respondent's arguments: The respondent argued that uploading the notice on the portal is sufficient compliance with Section 169 of the CGST Act. The judgment notes that the respondent relied on the argument that portal upload is sufficient service, as per Section 169.