Alder Crafts vs. State Of Hp And Ors

Held

The Court held that there was no proper service of the show cause notice upon the petitioner due to its incorrect upload under the head "Additional Notices" instead of "Notices and Orders" on the GST Portal. Consequently, any action taken on the basis of this improperly served notice was not sustainable. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notice dated 25.09.2023, the order dated 29.12.2023, and the recovery notice dated 11.08.2025. The Court granted liberty to the concerned authority to issue a fresh show cause notice, if required, on or before 31.07.2026. The Court clarified that any limitation period would not impede the issuance of this fresh notice. Proceedings thereafter were to be carried out considering the petitioner's response and in accordance with law, to be completed by 30.09.2026. The ratio decidendi is that failure to adhere to the prescribed statutory method of service of notices under the GST Act renders subsequent proceedings unsustainable and vitiates the entire action.

Facts

The petitioner, Alder Crafts, approached the High Court of Himachal Pradesh challenging a show cause notice (SCN) dated 25.09.2023, an order dated 29.12.2023 passed by Respondent No.3, and a recovery notice dated 11.08.2025. The petitioner's grievance was that the SCN was not properly served as it was uploaded on the GST portal under the head "Additional Notices" instead of the mandatory "Notices and Orders" as stipulated by Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This improper service led to the petitioner being proceeded against ex parte, resulting in the impugned order. The petitioner also contended that the SCN and the subsequent order lacked material particulars, making them non-speaking. The State did not dispute that the SCN was uploaded under the incorrect head.

Key Issues

1. Whether the show cause notice dated 25.09.2023 was properly served upon the petitioner in accordance with Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the order dated 29.12.2023 and the recovery notice dated 11.08.2025, passed pursuant to the allegedly improper service of the show cause notice, are sustainable? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the SCN was not served correctly because it was uploaded under "Additional Notices" instead of "Notices and Orders" on the GST portal, contrary to Section 169 of the CGST Act. This failure to comply with the statutory provision for service resulted in the petitioner being proceeded ex parte and the subsequent order being passed in violation of natural justice. The petitioner also argued that the SCN and the order were non-speaking and lacked material particulars. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment records that it was not in dispute that the SCN was uploaded under the head "Additional Notices" and not "Notices and Orders". No further arguments were recorded for the respondents.