Uploading notices in incorrect portal sections and denying personal hearings violates principles of natural justice.

The Petitioner is a company engaged in manufacturing chemical sulphates

Following an investigation in April 2023, Respondent No. 2 issued an Intimation (DRC-01A) on March 6, 2024, to which the Petitioner replied

Subsequently, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated October 18, 2024, and an Order dated December 20, 2024, under Section 74(9) of the MGST/CGST Act were issued

The Petitioner attempted to file a statutory appeal in July 2025, but it was rejected as time-barred

The Petitioner challenged the SCN and Order under Article 226, alleging they were never served with the SCN because it was uploaded in the "Additional Notices and Order" section instead of the mandated "View Notices and Orders" portal, and that no personal hearing was granted

1. Whether the failure to serve the Show Cause Notice through the correct portal window and the denial of a personal hearing constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice sufficient to entertain a Writ Petition despite the availability of an alternative remedy

2. Whether the Impugned Order dated December 20, 2024, is legally sustainable given the lack of effective service and hearing

Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the High Court's discretionary jurisdiction to intervene despite alternative remedies in cases of natural justice violations

Section 74 and Section 107 of the CGST/MGST Act, 2017, and the principle of audi alteram partem

The precedent set in T.S. Lines India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., which held that a taxpayer cannot be penalized for failing to notice a communication incorrectly placed on the GST portal

The Court found that although the SCN was placed on the portal, it was not uploaded to the "View Notices and Orders" window as required, resulting in no "effective service"

The Court reasoned that technical errors by the Respondents in displaying notices prejudice the Petitioner and negate the "reasonable opportunity" to respond

The Respondents conceded that no personal hearing was provided before the passing of the Impugned Order

The Court emphasized that procedural fairness is an essential concomitant of the law, and any breach leads to arbitrariness

Aligning with the T.S. Lines precedent, the Court determined that the Petitioner should not be attributed fault for missing a notice placed in the wrong portal section and that the matter necessitated a remand for fresh adjudication

The Court quashed and set aside the Impugned Show Cause Notice and the Order dated December 20, 2024

The matter was remanded to the Competent Authority to issue a fresh order after allowing the Petitioner to file a reply and affording them a personal hearing

The Court directed that if a fresh adverse order is passed, it shall be kept in abeyance for two weeks to allow the Petitioner to pursue statutory remedies