09 Apr Merely uploading SCN under the category “Additional Notices” instead of “Notices” on the GST portal does not constitute sufficient intimation to the taxpayer
Introduction:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Anhad Impex v. Assistant Commissioner, addressed the issue of whether the misplacement of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the “Additional Notices” category instead of “Notices” on the GST portal constitutes sufficient intimation to the taxpayer. This analysis examines the court’s findings and the implications for similar cases.
Facts of the Case:
Introduction:
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in the case of Anhad Impex v. Assistant Commissioner, addressed the issue of whether the misplacement of a Show Cause Notice (SCN) in the “Additional Notices” category instead of “Notices” on the GST portal constitutes sufficient intimation to the taxpayer. This analysis examines the court’s findings and the implications for similar cases.
Facts of the Case:
- M/s. Anhad Impex ("the Petitioner") received an Impugned Order dated November 29, 2023, from the Assistant Commissioner ("the Respondent"), creating a demand under Section 73 of the CGST Act.
- The Petitioner asserted that they never received the SCN, which formed the basis of the Impugned Order, thus depriving them of the opportunity to respond or participate in adjudication proceedings.
- SCNs are typically uploaded under the "Notices" section on the GST portal, but in this instance, it was placed in the less accessible "Additional Notices" category, leading the Petitioner to miss it.
- The Respondent contended that uploading the notice on the GST portal suffices as per Section 169 of the CGST Act.
Issue:
Whether the misplacement of the SCN in “Additional Notices” rather than “Notices” warrants the invalidation of the demand order?
Held:
- The court noted that the Petitioner's lack of response to the SCN indicated a lack of proper and timely intimation.
- Placing the SCN under "Additional Notices" instead of "Notices" made it less accessible, infringing upon principles of natural justice and provisions of the CGST Act.
- Referring to precedents such as East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner and Murugesan Jayalakshmi v. State Tax Officer, the court emphasized the importance of proper categorization on the portal.
- Consequently, the Impugned Order was set aside, with directions for the Petitioner to respond to the SCN, and the Respondent to re-adjudicate the matter with a personal hearing within four weeks.
No Comments