Maple Odc Movers Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA & Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Maple ODC Movers Private Limited, challenged an order dated 15.12.2023 that confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,21,64,174/- against it under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The demand comprised tax, interest, and penalty. The petitioner contended that it never received the show cause notice, as it was allegedly uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notices' rather than 'Notices'. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the notice and the hearing date, and could not file a reply. The petitioner also stated that the impugned order was not received. The petitioner only became aware of the confirmed demand through an official meeting. The respondents are the Union of India & Ors.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 was passed in default, as the petitioner neither filed a reply nor appeared for a personal hearing. The Court noted that the order did not specifically deal with any averments in the notice. In view of the petitioner's submission that it did not receive the show cause notice and sought an opportunity to respond, the Court set aside the impugned order. The petitioner was granted 30 days to file a reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the Proper Officer is to re-adjudicate the notice after providing a personal hearing and passing a fresh speaking order within the period prescribed under Section 75(3) of the Act. The Court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the contentions of either party, and all rights and contentions were reserved. The ratio decidendi is that a demand order passed without proper service of the show cause notice and an opportunity to be heard is liable to be set aside.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was duly served with the show cause notice dated 23.09.2023, as required by law, for the demand raised under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that it did not receive the show cause notice because it was not uploaded under the 'Notices' tab on the GST portal, but rather under 'Additional Notices'. This lack of proper notification prevented the petitioner from filing a reply or appearing for a hearing. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed in default without considering any of its averments. The respondents accepted notice, and the judgment does not record any specific arguments made by them in response to the petitioner's contentions regarding service of the notice.