M/S. Umang Realtech Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s. Umang Realtech Private Limited, challenged an order dated 07.12.2023, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice dated 25.09.2023 and raised a demand of Rs. 5,83,18,566.00 against it, including penalty. This order was passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner contended that it was unaware of the proceedings because the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the category of 'Additional Notices' and not communicated through other means. The Petitioner argued that this placement on the portal prevented them from responding, leading to an ex-parte order.

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner had made out a case that they missed the Show Cause Notice due to its placement under the 'Additional Notices' tab on the GST portal, which prevented them from responding. The impugned order had noted that the taxpayer had not replied or appeared, leading to an ex-parte demand. The Court found that the sole reason for the impugned order was the Petitioner's failure to file a reply. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order dated 07.12.2023. The Court directed the respondents to open the portal to allow the Petitioner to file a response to the Show Cause Notice within two weeks. Thereafter, the Proper Officer is to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice after providing an opportunity for a personal hearing and passing a fresh speaking order within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the contentions of either party.

Key Issues

1. Whether the placement of the Show Cause Notice under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal, rather than the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes a failure to properly communicate the notice to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice, as contemplated under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice was not properly communicated as it was uploaded under the 'Additional Notices' category, which they were unaware of. They relied on judgments from the Madras High Court in M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Murugesan Jayalakshmi Vs. State Tax Officer, which highlighted issues with the GST portal's architecture and the subsequent redesign to consolidate notice viewing. They contended that had the notice been in the correct place, they would have responded. Revenue's Arguments: The respondents, through their counsel, accepted notice. The judgment does not explicitly record specific arguments made by the revenue regarding the placement of the notice or the validity of the ex-parte order, other than noting that the impugned order stated that a reminder was issued and no reply was received.