M/S M. M Electrical Solutions vs. Commissioner, State Tax, Delhi & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the uploading of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the common portal, without any other mode of service, does not constitute sufficient service upon the petitioner/assessee, especially when an ex parte order is passed in the absence of a reply. The Court found itself unable to distinguish the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in "Luxmi Traders Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh." Consequently, the ex parte order dated January 31, 2025, was set aside. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to permit the Petitioner to file a reply to the SCN and decide the matter afresh within two months. The Petitioner was directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority on October 14, 2026, at 11:00 AM and would not be entitled to any further notice. The ratio decidendi is that principles of natural justice require proper service of notice, and mere uploading on a portal is insufficient without further proof of receipt or acknowledgment, particularly when an ex parte order is contemplated.

Facts

The Petitioner, M/s M. M Electrical Solutions, filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte order dated January 31, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act for the financial year 2020-21. The Petitioner had applied for cancellation of their GST registration, which was suspended on the same date. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated November 25, 2024, was uploaded on the common portal without any attempt to serve the Petitioner through other permissible modes. The sole allegation was the failure to file GST returns for the financial year 2020-21. Similar reminders were also uploaded on the portal without alternative service attempts. The Petitioner argued that the SCN and subsequent order were passed without proper service.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) on the common GST portal, without any other mode of service, constitutes valid service upon the petitioner/assessee, particularly when an ex parte order is passed in the absence of a reply? (Question of law, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the CGST Act). Petitioner's Arguments: - Relied on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in "Luxmi Traders Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh" (CWP-27139-2025), which held that uploading an SCN on the common portal is not sufficient service unless receipt is acknowledged or a reply is filed. - Argued that ex parte orders passed solely on the basis of portal uploads, without other service attempts, are liable to be set aside. Respondent's Arguments: - The respondent attempted to distinguish the judgment relied upon by the petitioner but was unable to do so.