Facts
The petitioners challenged proceedings culminating in an order dated 31 March 2023 that raised a tax, interest and penalty demand of ₹62,42,948.
Source reference: p. 1–3They contended that the notices had not appeared in the GST portal’s “View Notices and Orders” section, but were placed in the “Additional Notices and Orders” section under the User Services tab, leaving them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond.
Source reference: p. 1–3The Revenue disputed the claim of non-service.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioners relied on T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 6175.
Source reference: p. 1–3The petitioners did not press prayers (a) and (b), but pressed prayer (c) seeking, among other relief, quashing of the proceedings and order.
Source reference: p. 1–3Issues
1. Whether notices placed in the GST portal’s “Additional Notices and Orders” section, rather than the “View Notices and Orders” section, afforded the petitioners a fair opportunity to respond to the proceedings.
Source reference: p. 3–42. Whether the impugned order and related proceedings should be quashed on that basis.
Source reference: p. 3–5Law Applied
The Court relied on the Division Bench decision in T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 6175, which held that a petitioner could not be faulted for not noticing a notice or order where it was not placed in the portal’s “View Notices and Orders” window; the petitioner in that case had consequently lacked an opportunity to respond to the show-cause notice.
Source reference: p. 3, para. 6The Court applied that principle to the placement of notices on the GST portal in this case.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 7The Court did not determine the limitation question, leaving it open for the respondent No. 5.
Source reference: p. 5, order (ii)Reasoning
The Court found that, as in T.S. Lines, the notices in this case had not been placed in the “View Notices and Orders” portal and that the petitioners had not been heard or given an opportunity to present their case.
Source reference: pp. 3–4, paras. 6–7Applying the precedent, it concluded that the impugned order and proceedings should be set aside, while leaving the limitation question for the respondent No. 5 to decide.
Source reference: p. 4, para. 8; p. 5, order (ii)Holding
The Court allowed the petition in terms of prayer (c) and quashed the impugned order and the related documents, directions and proceedings.
It left the limitation question open, directed the parties to appear before respondent No. 5 on 27 October 2026, permitted the petitioners to file a reply, and directed respondent No. 5 to pass appropriate orders within four weeks after completion of pleadings.
Source reference: p. 5, orders (ii)–(v)The petition was disposed of on those terms.
Source reference: p. 6, order (vii)Acts & Sections Cited
1 provisions across 1 statute referred to in this judgment. Each provision opens on LawLens.
Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 20171
Original Court PDF
Abracadabra IndiavsUnion Of India Ministry Of Finance Department Of Revenue
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
