Shri Hari Agency vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer 2

Held

The Court held that the impugned orders were to be set aside and the cases remitted back to the respective respondents for fresh consideration. The reasoning was that the petitioners' claim of being unaware of the show cause notices hosted on the GST common portal indicated a potential violation of natural justice. The Court granted partial relief by allowing the cases to be reopened, subject to the condition that the petitioners deposit 10% of the disputed tax. The impugned orders were to be treated as addendums to the show cause notices. The petitioners were directed to file their replies within 30 days of receiving the order, along with the deposit. The respondents were to pass fresh orders on merits after hearing the petitioners, preferably within three months. The ratio decidendi is that non-receipt of a show cause notice due to technical hosting issues on a portal, if substantiated, can warrant a remand for fresh adjudication, provided a partial pre-deposit is made.

Facts

Two writ petitions were filed by Shri Hari Agency and Ganesh Pooja Store, represented by their proprietors, challenging orders passed by the Deputy State Tax Officer for the assessment year 2017-18. The petitioners contended that they were unaware of the show cause notices issued, as these notices were hosted on the GST common portal, leading to their non-participation in the proceedings. The impugned orders were dated December 15, 2023, and October 19, 2023, respectively. The petitions were heard at the admission stage.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities are liable to be quashed on the ground that the petitioners were unaware of the show cause notices due to their hosting on the GST common portal, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioners argued that they did not participate in the show cause notice proceedings because they were unaware of the notices being hosted on the GST common portal. This lack of awareness prevented them from presenting their case, leading to a violation of natural justice principles. They sought to quash the impugned orders. Revenue's contention: The judgment records no specific arguments from the revenue or state. However, their presence as respondents indicates their opposition to the relief sought by the petitioners.