Delhi High Court
Sanjay Gupta, Proprietor Of M/S. Jsr ... vs Sales Tax Officer Class Ii/Avato, Ward ... on 30 July, 2024
Author: Vibhu Bakhru
Bench: Vibhu Bakhru, Sachin Datta
$~58
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 10396/2024, CM Nos.42725/2024 & 42726/2024
% Date of Decision: 30.07.2024
SANJAY GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. JSR GEMS AND
JEWELLERY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, Mr. Sanjay Sharma
and Ms. Srishti Sharma, Advs.
versus
SALES TAX OFFICER CLASS II/AVATO, WARD 45, ZONE 3,
DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Udit Malik, ASC (Civil) and Mr.
Vishal Chanda, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA
VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning an
order dated 15.04.2024 (hereafter the impugned order) passed under Section
73 of the Delhi Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (hereafter the DGST Act)
pursuant to the Show Cause Notice dated 08.12.2023 (hereafter the
impugned SCN).
2. The impugned SCN was uploaded on the portal in the category of
'View Additional Notices & Orders', which the petitioner claims was not
easily accessible. It is contended that the show cause notices were required
to be placed under the category of 'View Notices & Orders' but the same
was not done.
3. The issue involved in the present petition is covered by earlier
decisions of this Court, including in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions
Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.: Neutral Citation
No.2024:DHC:4108-DB.
4. In the said decision, this Court had rejected the contention that
uploading of the notices under the heading 'Additional Notices' would be
sufficient service in terms of Section 169 of the Central Goods & Services
Tax Act, 2017. The relevant extract of the said decision is set out below :-
"4. 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.
5. 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. v. Assistant
Commissioner (ST) dated 11-9-2023, 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 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".
5. The GST Authorities have addressed the issue and have re-designed
the portal to ensure that 'View Notices' tab and 'View Additional Notices'
tab are placed adjacent to one another and under one heading.
6. Admittedly, the impugned SCN was issued before the portal was re-
designed.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned
order is set aside.
8. The matter is remanded to the concerned authority to adjudicate the
impugned SCN afresh. The petitioner is at liberty to file a response to the
impugned SCN within a period of two weeks from date.
9. The concerned authority shall adjudicate the impugned SCN after
considering the petitioner's response and after affording the petitioner an
opportunity to be heard.
10. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
applications also stand disposed of.
VIBHU BAKHRU, J
SACHIN DATTA, J
JULY 30, 2024
cl
