Sadhna Kohli vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii, Avato Ward 80 & Anr.
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Sadhna Kohli, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Sales Tax Officer Class II, AVATO Ward 80, under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order confirmed a demand raised pursuant to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 10.12.2023 for the tax period April 2018 to March 2019. The petitioner did not respond to the SCN. The petitioner's primary contention was that she did not receive the SCN, her GST registration was cancelled at the material time limiting portal access, and the SCN was not readily accessible on the GST portal as it was placed under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab.
Held
The Court allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 27.03.2024. The Court reasoned that the placement of the SCN under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab at the material time made it not readily accessible to taxpayers. This issue was found to be covered by previous decisions of the Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors. and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II. The Court noted that the GST portal has since been redesigned to improve accessibility. The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a reply to the SCN with supporting documents. The adjudicating authority was directed to consider the reply and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court expressly left no issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the petitioner was afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 10.12.2023, considering the placement of the SCN under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab on the GST portal and the cancellation of her GST registration at the material time, thereby impacting her access and awareness, as contemplated by Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that she did not receive the SCN due to its placement under a less accessible tab ('Additional Notices and Orders') and limited portal access resulting from her GST registration cancellation. She contended that this prevented her from responding to the SCN and sought a remand for a fresh decision. Revenue's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Sales Tax Officer and another).
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
W.P. (C) 10389/2024 $~67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
%
Date of Decision : 11.09.2024
+ W.P.(C) 10389/2024 & CM APPL No.52762/2024
SADHNA KOHLI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr Preetam Singh, Advocate.
versus
SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II, AVATO WARD 80 & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr Udit Malik, ASC and Mr Vishal Chanda, Advocate for R1 & 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner impugns an order dated 27.03.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed by the adjudicating authority under Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act) for the tax period from April 2018 to March 2019. 2. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 10.12.2023 (hereafter the SCN). The petitioner did not respond to the SCN. Consequently, the impugned order was passed confirming the demand as proposed to be raised in terms of the SCN.
In the aforesaid context, the petitioner also prays that the petitioner may be afforded one more opportunity to respond to the SCN and the matter W.P. (C) 10389/2024 be remanded to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh.
The petitioner claims that she did not receive the SCN and therefore, could not respond to the same. The petitioner also states that her access to the portal was limited as the GST registration was cancelled at the material time. In addition, the petitioner states that the SCN was not readily accessible on the GST portal because it was placed under a tab of ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ and the petitioner has no occasion to access the same.
Concededly, the aforesaid issue is covered by the decisions of this Court in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:4108-DB as well as Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II: Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108- DB.
At the material time, the show cause notices were placed under the tab ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ and were not readily accessible. This Court is informed that the said issue has since been remedied and the GST portal has been redesigned to place the notices as well as additional notices and orders under the menu item ‘View Notices and Orders’. Thus, now a user can view both tabs ‘Notices and Orders’ and ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ on the same page. However, it is not disputed that at the material time of issuance of the SCN, the tab ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ was not placed in a position which would invite the taxpayer’s attention to the said tab.
In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The impugned W.P. (C) 10389/2024 order is set aside.
The petitioner may file a reply to the SCN along with all relevant documents relied upon by her within a period of two weeks from date. The adjudicating authority shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application also stands disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2024 M
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Reproduced from the public record of the Delhi High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.