M/S Apn Sales And Marketing vs. Union Of INDIA & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s APN Sales and Marketing, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notification, a show cause notice, and an order dated February 28, 2024. The impugned order, passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017, confirmed a demand of ₹19,62,334/- for the financial year 2018-19. This order was based on a show cause notice dated December 8, 2023, which the petitioner claimed was never received. The petitioner stated that the show cause notice was only visible on their GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. The petitioner confined their challenge to the impugned order dated February 28, 2024.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated February 28, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the CGST/DGST Act, 2017, confirming a demand of ₹19,62,334/- for the financial year 2018-19, was liable to be set aside. This decision was based on the concession made by the respondent revenue. The revenue acknowledged that the issue was covered by prior judgments of the Delhi High Court, specifically M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II. These precedents likely dealt with the requirement of proper service of show cause notices and the consequences of non-service. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority was directed to reconsider the case afresh after providing the petitioner with an adequate opportunity to be heard. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated February 28, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, and Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside due to the petitioner not receiving the show cause notice dated December 8, 2023? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under Section 73). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the impugned order should be set aside because they never received the show cause notice, which is a prerequisite for passing such an order, thus violating principles of natural justice. They relied on the fact that the notice was only available on the GST portal under a specific tab. Revenue's Contention: The respondent revenue conceded that the issue was covered in favour of the petitioner by previous decisions of the Delhi High Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II.