Whether uploading SCN under ‘Additional Notices’ tab on the GSTN constitute sufficient intimation to the taxpayer?

No, the Honorable Delhi High Court in the case of Anhad Impex v. Assistant Commissioner [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2356 of 2024 dated 16.02.2024] held that merely uploading a Show Cause Notice under the category “Additional Notices” instead of “Notices” on the GST Portal does not constitute sufficient intimation to the taxpayer. Consequently, the subsequent demand order passed without giving the Petitioner a proper opportunity to respond to SCN was set aside, and the Court directed that SCN be re-adjudicated after affording a proper opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

The Honorable Delhi High Court observed that the perusal of the Impugned Order showed that it categorically recorded that the Petitioner had not filed any reply or appeared in person in response to SCN. This indicated that the Petitioner had not filed any reply or appeared in person in response to SCN. This indicated that the Petitioner did not have a proper and timely intimation of SCN. Further, noted that the uploading of the SCN under the category “Additional Notices” instead of “Notices” on the GST Portal, which is the standard practice followed by the tax authorities, had resulted in the Petitioner missing out on the intimation of the SCN. The Honorable Court opined that merely uploading the SCN on the portal, especially under the “Additional Notices” category which is not easily accessible or discoverable by the taxpayers, cannot be considered as sufficient intimation or compliance with the principles of natural justice and the provisions of the CSGT Act.

The Honorable Court relied on the judgment in the case of East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd. v. Asstt. Commissioner (ST) [W.P. No. 26457/2023 dated 11.09.2023] wherein the Honorable High Court of Madras has noticed that communications were placed under the heading of “View Notices and Orders” and “View Additional Notices and Orders”. The Honorable Madras High Court had directed the respondents to address the issue arising out of the posting of information under two separate headings. According to the petitioner, the Menu “View Additional Notices and Orders” were under the heading of “User Services” and not under the heading “View Notices and Orders”.

Author’s Comments

Although Section 169 of the CGST Act, 2017 specifies 14 different ways/ modes of serving any decision, order, summon, notice, or other communication under the Act, care must be taken by the authorities not to simply pick and choose any option, rather the best possible option must be chosen by which it is mostly likely to reach the intended noticee. The notice or any other communication cannot be termed to be serviced until it has reached the intended noticee.

Violation of principles of natural justice is a failure of due process. This violation renders the process arbitrary and when executive action is arbitrary it violates articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Reference may be made to the jurisprudence in the case of Menaka Gandhi v. UOI AIR 1978 SC597, which illuminates understanding about the ‘role’ of a valid notice in any proceeding. However, obvious the conclusion and consequent treatment might be. In the author’s considered opinion, it is immaterial whether the notice was uploaded on “View Notices and Order” tab or “View Additional Notices and Orders” tab. The only aspect to consider is whether or not the intended notice was served to the intended noticee or not.

GSTN update on ‘Notice’ and ‘Additional Notice’ tab in Jan2024

The GST Portal has brought the “Notices and Orders” with “Additional Notices and Orders” within a single window. It is a significant improvement in user experience. This aims to simplify access to crucial information without navigating to two different places in the portal. It will certainly enhances use experience and bring ease of compliance. Users can now seamlessly navigate between the two options within single window.