01Facts
The Petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the GST regime, challenged a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated December 9, 2023, for the Financial Year 2018-19, and a subsequent adjudication order dated April 5, 2024.
pp. 1-2, para 1-2The impugned order, passed under Section 73 of the DGST Act, raised a tax demand of ₹23,67,282.
p. 2, para 3The Petitioner did not file a reply to the SCN because the notice was uploaded on the GST portal under the "Additional Notices Tab," which was not visible or known to the Petitioner at the time.
p. 2, para 4Consequently, the order was passed ex-parte without the Petitioner having an opportunity to contest the demand or the alleged miscalculation of Input Tax Credit.
p. 2, para 402Issues
i.1. Whether an adjudication order passed without a reply from the taxpayer is sustainable when the SCN was uploaded in the "Additional Notices Tab" of the GST portal.
p. 4, para 6ii.2. Whether a reminder notice issued after a portal update can validate an SCN that was initially not effectively served.
p. 5, para 803Law Applied
The court primarily applied Section 73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, concerning the determination of tax.
p. 2, para 3It relied on the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing as protected under Article 226 of the Constitution.
p. 1, para 1 · p. 2, para 5The Court followed the precedents set in Neelgiri Machinery v. Commissioner Delhi Goods and Service Tax and Satish Chand Mittal v. Sales Tax Officer, which established that notices placed in the "Additional Notices Tab" prior to portal redesigns (pre-January 16, 2024) do not constitute effective service if they were not visible to the noticee.
pp. 3-4, para 5-6Provisions in the judgment · 1
Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 Section 73
04Reasoning
The Court noted that the "Additional Notices Tab" was only made clearly visible through portal changes introduced after January 16, 2024.
p. 4, para 6Since the SCN in this case was issued on December 9, 2023, it was placed in a tab that was not effectively accessible to the Petitioner.
p. 4, para 6The Respondent argued that a reminder was issued on February 27, 2024 (after the portal update), which should have alerted the Petitioner.
p. 5, para 7However, the Court rejected this contention, reasoning that if the original SCN was never effectively served due to its placement in the "Additional Notices Tab," any subsequent "reminder" regarding that specific SCN cannot be treated as valid or effective service in the eyes of the law.
p. 5, para 8The Court emphasized the necessity of ensuring orders are not passed in default and that taxpayers receive a fair opportunity to be heard on merits.
p. 2, para 505Holding
The Court set aside the impugned demand order dated April 5, 2024.
p. 5, para 9The matter was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority to ensure a decision on the merits.
pp. 4-5, para 6The Court granted the Petitioner until May 8, 2026, to file a reply to the SCN.
p. 5, para 9The Adjudicating Authority was directed to provide a personal hearing, duly communicate the hearing notice to the Petitioner, and pass a fresh order after considering the Petitioner's reply and submissions.
p. 5, para 10Access to the GST portal was ordered to be provided to enable the Petitioner to upload the reply and view related documents.
p. 5, para 11Original Court PDF
M/S. Nhd MotorsvsThe Government Of N.C.T. Of Delhi And Anr.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
