Rakesh Sehgal vs. Sales Tax Officer & Anr.

Facts

The Petitioner, Rakesh Sehgal, filed a writ petition challenging a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated December 8, 2023, and an Order-in-Original dated March 4, 2024, issued by the Sales Tax Officer. The SCN, issued under Section 73 of the CGST Act, demanded Rs. 23,36,328/- for the period April 2018-March 2019. A subsequent notice dated February 2, 2024, granted a final opportunity for personal hearing. The Petitioner contended that these notices and the order were not properly served, having been uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notices and Orders' instead of 'Notices and Orders', and lacked signatures. The Petitioner argued this prevented them from knowing about and responding to the proceedings.

Held

The Court perused the record from the Goods and Services Tax Portal, which confirmed that the SCN, notice, and Order-in-Original were indeed uploaded in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. The Court found merit in the Petitioner's contention regarding the improper upload of these documents. While not deciding the merits of the demand itself, the Court acknowledged that the Petitioner was prejudiced by the manner of service. Consequently, the Court permitted the Petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority under Section 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, within 30 days. The Court directed that if the appeal is filed within this period, it shall not be dismissed on grounds of limitation and must be adjudicated on its merits. All contentions of the parties were left open.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Show Cause Notice, subsequent notice, and Order-in-Original were validly served upon the Petitioner, considering they were uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notices and Orders' without signatures, thereby violating the Petitioner's right to be heard as contemplated under Section 73 and Section 75(4) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the erroneous upload of crucial documents on the GST portal, coupled with the absence of signatures, amounted to non-service. This failure to provide proper notice and an opportunity to be heard on merits rendered the proceedings and the consequent demand invalid. The Petitioner relied on the legislative intent of ensuring a fair hearing. Revenue's Contention: Appearance was not given by the respondents.