Anhad Impex Through Its Partner & Anr. vs. Assistant Commissioner Ward 16 Zone 2 Delhi & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Anhad Impex, challenged an order dated 29.11.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. The petitioner contended that they never received the Show Cause Notice dated 24.09.2023. They argued that the notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the category of 'Additional Notices' rather than the easily accessible 'Notices' section, causing it to be overlooked. The petitioner sought an opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and be granted a personal hearing. The respondents argued that uploading the notice on the portal constituted sufficient compliance as per Section 169 of the CGST Act.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case that they missed the receipt of the Show Cause Notice due to its placement under 'Additional Notices' and consequently could not respond. The Court found the respondent's contention regarding Section 169 insufficient in this context, referencing Madras High Court judgments that identified issues with the GST portal's architecture. The impugned order, which noted the taxpayer's non-response, was set aside. The Court directed the respondents to reopen the portal for the petitioner to file a response to the Show Cause Notice within 30 days. The Proper Officer was then to re-adjudicate the Show Cause Notice within four weeks, and the petitioner was to be granted a personal hearing. The principle established is that while portal uploads are generally sufficient, a notice's placement in an obscure category can vitiate the process, necessitating an opportunity to be heard.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a Show Cause Notice under the 'Additional Notices' category on the GST portal constitutes sufficient compliance for intimation to the taxpayer, as per Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the Show Cause Notice was not received because it was uploaded under 'Additional Notices,' which is not easily accessible, unlike the 'Notices' section. They relied on judgments from the Madras High Court in W.P. No.26457/2023 (M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST)) and W.P. No.22369/2023, which highlighted issues with the portal's architecture and the placement of notices. Revenue's arguments: The respondent contended that in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, uploading a notice on the portal is sufficient compliance for intimating the taxpayer.