Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited Through Its Director Pawan Garg vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the Petitioner had made out a case for not having received or noticed the show cause notice due to its upload under the 'Additional Notices' tab on the GST portal. This failure to respond, consequently, led to the demand being raised. The Court noted that the impugned order itself recorded that the taxpayer had not replied or appeared. Therefore, the Court found it necessary to grant the Petitioner one opportunity to respond to the show cause notice. The Court set aside the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 and disposed of the petition by applying the directions issued in WP No. 11483/2025 mutatis mutandis. The ratio decidendi is that if a show cause notice is placed in an obscure or non-standard location on a digital portal, leading to a taxpayer's inability to respond, and this is demonstrated to the Court, principles of natural justice necessitate providing an opportunity to respond and re-adjudication. The Court directed the respondents to open the portal for the Petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice within two weeks, after which the Proper Officer would re-adjudicate after providing a personal hearing and passing fresh speaking orders.

Facts

The Petitioner, Maple Overseas Trade Private Limited, challenged an order dated 10.03.2025 for the tax period 2022-23, which raised a demand under Sections 73 and 107 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The Petitioner argued that the situation was identical to a previous case, WP No. 11483/2025 (Singh Construction and Co. Vs. The State of M.P. and others), decided by a coordinate bench. In that prior case, the petitioner challenged demand orders and subsequent appeal orders that dismissed appeals as filed beyond time. The petitioner in that case contended they were unaware of the show cause notices as they were uploaded on the GST portal under 'Additional Notices' and not communicated through other modes, leading to a failure to respond. The State counsel did not dispute the similarity of circumstances.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Petitioner was adequately served with the show cause notice, considering it was uploaded under the 'Additional Notices' tab on the GST portal, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Argument: The Petitioner contended that they were unaware of the proceedings because the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices' category, which they did not regularly check. They argued that this constituted insufficient service and a violation of natural justice, referencing judgments from the Madras High Court (East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sabari Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST)) and the Delhi High Court (Umang Realtech (P.) Ltd v. Union of India, Anhad Impex and another Vs. Assistance Commissioner). These judgments highlighted issues with the GST portal's architecture and the placement of notices. Revenue/State's Argument: The judgment records no specific argument from the State counsel disputing the Petitioner's claim regarding the portal upload issue. The State counsel did not dispute the aspect of the matter being identical to the cited case.