Quashed

M/S Ace Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC10 May 2024W.P.(C)/6758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Delhi High Court set aside a demand creation order under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017, where the petitioner missed the Show Cause Notice because it was incorrectly uploaded under 'Additional Notices.' The court directed the respondent to enable the petitioner to respond and adjudicate the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.03.2024 was set aside; petitioner granted 30 days to file response and opportunity of personal hearing; Proper Officer to adjudicate within four weeks.

M/S Ace Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited Vs Union of… — GST and Indirect Tax | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~32

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 10.05.2024

¶3

- W.P.(C) 6758/2024, CM APPL. 28148/2024 & CM APPL. 28149/2024

¶4

M/S ACE CARDIOPATHY SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED

¶5

..... Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

¶8

Advocates who appeared in this case:

¶9

For the Petitioner: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr. Gaurav Mishra, SPC for R-1. Mr. Rajeev Aggarwal, ASC with Ms. Shaguftha Badhwar and Ms. Samridhi Vats, Advocates

¶10

CORAM:-

¶11

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Petitioner impugns order dated 13.03.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a demand has been created against the petitioner.

¶15

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner never received the Show Cause Notice dated 08.12.2023 and accordingly could not respond to the same. Learned counsel submits that the Show Cause Notices are normally uploaded on the portal under the heading

¶16

Signature Not Verified

¶17

W.P.(C) 6758/2024 Page 1 of 5

¶18

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

¶19

of „Notices‟, however, in the instant case it appears that the Show Cause Notice was uploaded on the portal in the category of „Additional Notices‟ which were not easily accessible, and accordingly skipped the attention of the petitioner. He prays that one opportunity be granted to the petitioner to respond to the Show Cause Notice and an opportunity of a personal hearing be also given.

¶20

Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel for the respondent. With the consent of parties, this petition is taken up for hearing today.

¶21

Learned counsel for respondent submits that in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, uploading of a notice on the portal is sufficient compliance with regard to intimation to the taxpayer.

¶22

We are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel, reference may be had to the judgment of the High Court of Madras in W.P. No.26457/2023, titled M/s East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner (ST) dated 11.09.2023, wherein the High Court of Madras has noticed that communications are placed under the heading of “View Notices and Orders” and “View Additional Notices and Orders”. The Madras High Court had directed the respondents to address the issue arising out of posting of

¶23

Signature Not Verified

¶24

W.P.(C) 6758/2024 Page 2 of 5

¶25

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

¶26

information under two separate headings. As per 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”.

¶27

This issue is further highlighted by another judgment of the Madras High Court dated 31.07.2023 in W.P. No.22369/2023 and other connected petitions, wherein the Madras High Court has noticed as under:-

¶28

“3. The only ground on which the, the impugned orders are under challenge is that the notices, which preceded the impugned orders were hosted in the Dashboard of the petitioner meant for „Additional Notices and Orders‟ whereas, the notices should have been hosted by the respondent in the Dash Board for „View Notices and Orders‟.

¶29

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the manual copy given by the respondent in the web portal, which reads as under:-

¶30

“How can I view or download the notices and demand orders issued by the GST tax authorities?

¶31

To view or download the notices and demand orders issues by the GST tax authorities, perform the following steps:

¶32

1. Access the www.gst.gov.in URL. The GST Home page is displayed.

¶33

2. Login to the GST Portal with valid credentials.

¶34

Signature Not Verified

¶35

W.P.(C) 6758/2024 Page 3 of 5

¶36

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

¶37

3. Click the Services > User Services > View Notices and Orders command.

¶38

5. It is submitted that had the notice been uploaded in the correct place, the petitioner would have seen it and replied to the same and participated in the proceedings. Since the Notices and the Orders were hosted in the Dashboard of the petitioner meant for “Additional Notices and Orders”, the petitioner failed to notice and file a reply to the Show Cause Notice.

¶39

9. The problem has arisen on account of the complex architecture of the web portal. It has been designed to facilitate easy access of informations. It has however resulted in the petitioner failing to notice the notice that was issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order on 20.03.2023. It went unnoticed by the petitioner, as a result of which, the impugned orders have been passed on 29.04.2023.”

¶40

Attention is also drawn to yet another judgment of Madras High Court dated 08.02.2024 in Writ Petition No.2746/2024, titled Murugesan Jayalakshmi Vs. State Tax Officer , wherein the Madras High Court has noticed that the said issue has been addressed and the portal has been re-designed and both the “View Notices” tab and “View Additional Notices” tab are under one heading.

¶41

Clearly, petitioner has made out a case that petitioner has missed out the receipt of the notice and accordingly could not respondent to the Show Cause Notice.

¶42

Signature Not Verified

¶43

W.P.(C) 6758/2024 Page 4 of 5

¶44

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

¶45

Perusal of the impugned order shows that the impugned order categorically records that the tax payer has not replied or appeared in person. Consequently, we are of the view that petitioner needs to be granted one opportunity to respond to the Show Cause Notice and thereafter, the Show Cause Notice to be re-adjudicated.

¶46

In view of the above, impugned order dated 13.03.2024 is set aside. Respondent shall open the portal to enable the petitioner to file a response to the said Show Cause Notice dated 08.12.2023 which shall be filed within a period of 30 days. Thereafter, the Proper Officer of the respondent shall adjudicate the Show Cause Notice within a period of four weeks thereof. Petitioner shall also be given an opportunity of personal hearing.

¶47

Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

¶48

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J

¶49

MAY 10, 2024/ MR RAVINDER DUDEJA, J

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

W.P.(C) 6758/2024 Page 5 of 5

¶52

Digitally Signed By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Da te:2 0.05.2024 16:22:26

M/S Ace Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Ace Cardiopathy Solutions Private Limited v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjiv Kumar Vashist Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Trio Security and Intelligence Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sh. Sunil Kumar & Anr.

National Federaion of Farmers Procurement Processing & Retailing Cooperativs of India Ltd. Nacop Vs Union of India & Ors. & Anr.

Lord Krishna Tradexim LLP (Pan AABCL4428K) (as Successor in Interest of Lord Krishna Tradexim (P) L Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 13(1) Delhi & Ors.

Chandershehar Malhotra Vs North Delhi Power Ltd.

Naresh Mittal Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 43(6) Delhi & Ors.

Neelkanth Steel and Alloys Vs Asstt. Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Circle 49(1), & Ors.

Maa Jhandewali Co-Operative Urban Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. Vs the Registrar Co-Operative Societies, & Ors.

Bhavna Luthra L/H of Sh. Narain Das Luthra, Proprietor of M/S. Hunny Enterprises Vs Assistant Commissioner, Range -8, Cgst Delhi & Anr.

Ms Sherin Rizwan Vs Special Commissioner Trade and Tax Department and Ors.

M/S Usha Industries through Its Partner Mr Sandeep Singhal Vs Assistant Cominissioner Ward 82 and Another

Swastik Traders Vs Commissioner of Vat and Anr.

M/S Kvs Industries through Its Proprietor Mr. Krishana Yadav Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Services Tax and Anr.

M/S Services International Vs Union of India and Ors.