Ayush Agarwal Proprietor Of M/S Shakambari Agro Foods vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Held

The Court held that the petitioner had made out a case that they missed the notice because it was uploaded under the "Additional Notices" tab, preventing them from responding to the show cause notice. The impugned order had recorded that the taxpayer was put to notice but did not file a reply or deposit the tax. However, due to the placement of the notice, the petitioner failed to notice it. The Court found that the complex architecture of the web portal led to the petitioner failing to notice the notice. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters back to the Proper Officer for fresh adjudication. The Proper Officer was directed to allow the petitioner to file a response to the show cause notice within two weeks, and thereafter, re-adjudicate after providing an opportunity of personal hearing and passing fresh speaking orders 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.

Facts

The petitioner, Ayush Agarwal, proprietor of M/s Shakambari Agro Foods, filed multiple writ petitions challenging orders passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the show cause notices were uploaded on the GST portal under the category of "Additional Notices" and not under the primary "View Notices and Orders" tab, leading to their unawareness of the proceedings. Consequently, the petitioner could not respond to the show cause notices or appear before the authorities, resulting in ex-parte orders and demand creation. The impugned orders were passed by the revenue authorities.

Key Issues

1. Whether the placement of show cause notices solely under the "Additional Notices" tab on the GST portal constitutes proper service of notice, thereby satisfying the principles of natural justice, in light of Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices were not properly served as they were uploaded under the "Additional Notices" tab, which is not as prominently displayed as the "View Notices and Orders" tab. This led to the petitioner being unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond, violating the principles of natural justice. They relied on judgments from the Madras High Court (Ms. Light Group v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others, East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner (ST), Sabari Infra (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST), Murugesan Jayalakshmi v. State Tax Officer) and the Delhi High Court (Umang Realtech (P.) Ltd v. Union of India, Anhad Impex and another Vs. Assistance Commissioner) which highlighted similar issues with the GST portal's architecture and emphasized the need for effective communication. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents/State.