Udayraj Yadav Proprietor-Zenith Creative Services vs. Sales Tax Officer Class Ii Avato Ward 96 Zone 09 Delhi & Anr.

Facts

The petitioner, Udayraj Yadav, proprietor of Zenith Creative Services, challenged an order dated 04.12.2023, which disposed of a Show Cause Notice dated 23.09.2023 and imposed a demand of Rs.12,92,704.00, including penalty, under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings because the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the "Additional Notices" category and not communicated through other means. The petitioner cited judgments from the Madras High Court highlighting similar issues with the GST portal's architecture, where notices under "Additional Notices and Orders" were missed by taxpayers.

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, preventing them from responding. Consequently, the impugned order dated 04.12.2023 was set aside. The Court reasoned that since the order was passed solely because the petitioner did not file a reply, an opportunity to respond should be granted. The respondents were directed to open the portal for the petitioner to file a response to the Show Cause Notice within four 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 explicitly stated that it had not considered or commented on the merits of the contentions of either party.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 04.12.2023, passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-communication of the Show Cause Notice to the petitioner? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the Show Cause Notice as it was uploaded on the GST portal under the "Additional Notices" category, which is not the primary location for such communications. They relied on Madras High Court judgments in M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) and Murugesan Jayalakshmi Vs. State Tax Officer, which noted issues with the portal's architecture and directed re-adjudication when notices were missed due to placement under "Additional Notices". Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments from the respondents.