M/S Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIA

Held

The Court dismissed the writ application, holding that the petitioner had been properly served with the show cause notice and subsequent communications, including the impugned order, through the common portal, SMS, and registered email ID. The Court found that the petitioner was provided with a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court further noted that the petitioner, despite being aware of the proceedings or having received intimations, chose not to respond to the show cause notices/reminders or file an appeal under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act. Instead, the petitioner filed the writ application after a significant delay of approximately one year from the passing of the impugned order. Citing Supreme Court judgments, the Court emphasized that writ petitions should not be entertained when a statutory forum for redressal exists and when there is an unexplained delay in approaching the court. The Court concluded that entertaining the writ application filed after such a delay would frustrate the legislative intent and render the statutory scheme otiose. Therefore, the writ application was held not maintainable and was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Sushruta Health Services Private Limited, sought to quash an order dated February 19, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, for the period 2020-2021, and a show cause notice dated November 25, 2024. The petitioner claimed the show cause notice was never served. The petitioner is registered and provides healthcare services, claiming to be covered under statutory exemptions. The respondent department contended that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal, and intimations were sent via SMS and email to the registered contact particulars. Despite three reminders, the petitioner failed to reply, leading to the impugned order determining liability for excess Input Tax Credit (ITC). The department also argued that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated November 25, 2024, and the subsequent order dated February 19, 2025, passed under Section 73 of the BGST/CGST Act, 2017, are liable to be quashed on the ground of non-service of the show cause notice to the petitioner, thereby violating principles of natural justice? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that it never received physical notice, email, or any other form of intimation regarding the proceedings. The show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal without ensuring effective communication or actual knowledge, leaving the petitioner unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, the impugned order was passed without granting an opportunity for hearing. Revenue/State's contention: The respondent department argued that the show cause notice was uploaded on the common GST portal, and simultaneous intimations were sent via SMS and email to the registered contact particulars of the petitioner. The department provided details of multiple communications, including the show cause notice, three reminders, and the summary of the order, all sent to the petitioner's registered email address and mobile number. The department also asserted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the BGST/CGST Act and that the writ application was filed with significant delay.