Mitali Saha vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Original PDF →
WPA/14092/2024HC CalcuttaGSTCNR WBCHCA026006202408 July 2024Bench: HON'BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Mitali Saha, challenged a show cause notice dated April 6, 2023, and an adjudication order dated December 6, 2023, both issued under Section 73 of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017-March 2018. The petitioner argued that these documents were not uploaded to the designated "view notices and orders" section of the GST portal, but rather to a different section, "view additional notices and orders." This, coupled with the portal's complex interface prior to redesign, allegedly denied the petitioner an opportunity to respond, leading to an ex parte order. The petitioner also highlighted the subsequent attachment of her bank account, which was later withdrawn. The respondents contended that the petitioner was repeatedly informed via email about the notices and their locations on the portal.

Held

The Court acknowledged that the show cause notice under Section 73 was not uploaded to the "view notices and orders" section of the portal. However, it was undisputed that the petitioner was informed via email about the exact location of the show cause notice on the portal. Despite this, considering the confusion regarding the uploading of the show cause notice and the order, and particularly in light of the portal's dashboard redesign, the Court decided to permit the petitioner to challenge the adjudication order dated December 6, 2023, before the appellate authority. The Court directed that if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority within 30 days with an appeal and an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority should condone the delay, hear and dispose of the appeal on merits within 12 weeks, after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This is subject to the petitioner complying with the pre-deposit requirements under Section 107 of the Act. The Court found that the petitioner should be allowed to pursue the appeal due to the procedural confusion regarding the portal upload and the subsequent bank account attachment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a show cause notice and adjudication order under Section 73 and Section 73(9) of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017, to a section other than the designated "view notices and orders" on the GST portal constitutes proper service on the petitioner, thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that uploading the show cause notice and adjudication order to the "view additional notices and orders" section, and not the primary "view notices and orders" section, did not constitute valid service. They argued that the complexity of the portal, especially before its redesign, made it difficult for registered taxpayers to access information, leading to a denial of opportunity to respond and resulting in an ex parte order. Reliance was placed on the violation of principles of natural justice. Respondents' arguments: The respondents argued that the petitioner was repeatedly informed via email communications (dated July 28, 2022, October 21, 2022, and April 6, 2023) about the service of notices, including the show cause notice under Section 73, and that these emails specified the exact location of the notice on the portal. They asserted that if the petitioner overlooked this information, the respondents could not be held responsible.

Sections Cited

Section 73, Section 73(9), Section 107, Section 168A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURI ICTION APPELLATE SIDE Present: The Hon’ble Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury

WPA 14092 of 2024 Mitali Saha Versus State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Himangshu Kumar Roy Mr. P.K.Ray Mr. S. Podder Ms. S.Shaw For the respondents : Mr. T.M.Siddiqui Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Saptak Sanyal Heard on : 8th July, 2024 Judgment on : 8th July, 2024. Raja Basu Chowdhury, J:

1.

Affidavits of service filed in Court today is retained with the record.

2.

Although, the present writ petition has been filed inter alia, challenging the notifications dated 5th July 2022 and 31st March 2023 issued under Section 168A of the CGST/WBGST Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”), at the very outset Mr. Ray, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that he does

2 not want to proceed with the said challenge. Since the petition is now confined to the challenge of the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the said Act dated 6th April 2023 and the order dated 6th December 2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act in respect of the tax period July 2017-March 2018, the same is taken up for consideration.

3.

Mr. Ray, by placing before this Court the show cause notice and the adjudication order, has tried to impress upon this Court that since, neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order issued under Section 73 and Section 73 (9) of the said Act, had been uploaded in the “view notices and orders” section of the portal, the uploading of the notice dated 6th April, 2023 and the order dated 6th December, 2023, in the portal, in other section does not constitute service of such notice or order on the petitioner.

4.

According to him, the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the said Act and the order issued under Section 73(9) of the said Act were in fact uploaded on the “view additional notices and orders” section of the portal. The complex nature of the portal, prior to the same being redesigned had made it extremely difficult for the registered tax payers to access information from the portal. Taking into consideration the above, the Dash Board of the portal had also been redesigned. For reasons as aforesaid, the petitioner had been denied the opportunity to appropriately respond to the same and accordingly an ex parte order had been passed. He submits that in 3 the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the adjudication order should be set aside, since the same had been passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

5.

Further, by drawing attention of this Court to the notice in Form GST DRC – 13 dated 6th May 2024 it is submitted that the respondents had in pursuance to the ex parte order purported to attach the petitioner’s bank account. The aforesaid fact had come to the light from the disclosure made by the petitioner’s banker. Copy of the aforesaid notice was also not forwarded to the petitioner.

6.

Mr. Ray, by placing before this Court a letter dated 28th May 2024 issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Raiganj Charge, submits that by the aforesaid communication, the attachment order on the petitioner’s bank account had since, been withdrawn.

7.

Mr. Siddiqui, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand by drawing attention of this Court to the email communications dated 28th July 2022, 21st October 2022 and 6th April 223 submits that the petitioner was repeatedly informed with regard to service of notices including the service of show cause notice under Section 73 of the said Act. By referring to the aforesaid email communications he submits that the emails categorically record the exact location in the portal where the said notice is available. If the petitioner had chosen to overlook the same, the respondents cannot be made responsible thereof. He, however, acknowledges the fact that the respondents had by a 4 communication in writing dated 28th May 2024 withdrawn the order of attachment attaching the petitioner’s bank account.

8.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

9.

Admittedly, in this case it is noticed that the show cause notice issued under Section 73 of the said Act was not uploaded in the “view notices and orders” section of the portal. It is, however, not in doubt that by email communications the petitioner was informed with regard to the exact location of the show cause notice on the portal. Such fact would corroborate from the email communications which remains uncontroverted. Be that as it may, since there was some confusion with regard to uploading of the show cause and the order and especially taking into consideration the fact that the dashboard of the portal has been re-designed, I am of the view that the petitioner should be permitted to challenge the aforesaid adjudication order dated 6th December 2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the said Act before the appellate authority.

10.

In the event, the petitioner approaches the appellate authority within 30 days from date and files an appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, the appellate authority, by condoning the delay shall hear out and dispose of the appeal on merits by passing a reasoned order, within a period of 12 weeks from date of filing of the said appeal upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner complying with 5 the requirement for pre-deposit, as is required for maintaining an appeal under Section 107 of the said Act.

11.

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition being WPA 14092 of 2024 is disposed of.

12.

There shall be no order as to costs.

13.

All parties shall act on the basis of the server copy of this order duly downloaded from this Court’s official website.

(Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.) Saswata

Reproduced from the public record of the Calcutta High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.