Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Neeraj Kumar, sole proprietor of M/s ABM Pneumatics & Hydraulic Sales, challenged an order dated 30.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The order was issued pursuant to a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 28.09.2023.

The petitioner also challenged Notification No. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31.03.2023, which extended the limitation period for passing orders under Section 73(10) of the CGST Act for FY 2017–18 up to 31.12.2023 under Section 168A of the CGST Act.

A key grievance was that the SCN was uploaded on the GST portal under the tab ‘Additional Notices and Orders’, making it difficult to access and thereby denying proper notice. 

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading a Show Cause Notice under “Additional Notices and Orders” constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017.
  2. Whether the impugned SCN was barred by limitation.
  3. Whether the order passed under Section 73 is sustainable in absence of proper service of notice.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The SCN was not properly served as it was uploaded in an inaccessible tab (“Additional Notices and Orders”) instead of the main “Notices and Orders” section.
  • Such improper placement deprived the petitioner of a reasonable opportunity to respond.
  • The SCN was effectively not communicated, rendering subsequent proceedings invalid.
  • The SCN was also challenged as being barred by limitation. 

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The department contended that uploading notices on the GST portal constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act.
  • It was argued that once the notice is uploaded electronically, the statutory requirement of service is fulfilled. 

Court Findings / Order

The Delhi High Court relied on its earlier decision in:

  • ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. Union of India

The Court held:

  • Uploading notices under “Additional Notices and Orders” does not constitute proper service under Section 169.
  • The GST portal structure at the relevant time created confusion and hindered accessibility.
  • Proper service requires that notices be placed in a manner reasonably accessible to taxpayers.

Final Order

  • The impugned order dated 30.12.2023 was set aside.
  • The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
  • The petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply within two weeks.
  • The authority must provide an opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order. 

Important Clarification

  • The Court acknowledged that the GST portal has since been redesigned to integrate notice tabs.
  • However, for notices issued prior to such redesign, improper placement may invalidate service.
  • This judgment reinforces that procedural fairness and accessibility are integral to valid service under GST law. 

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST Act, 2017
  • Section 73(9) & 73(10), CGST Act
  • Section 168A, CGST Act
  • Section 169, CGST Act (Service of Notice)

Link to download the order -  https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/showFileJudgment/VIB11072024CW94252024_132634.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.