BABLU RANA (TARA TRADING CO.) v. Proper Officer, SGST Ward-24, Zone-1
Delhi High Court | W.P.(C) 9394/2024 | Decision dated 11.07.2024
Category: Demand under Section 73 – Validity of Service of SCN / Portal Notice Placement
Sections Involved: Sections 73(9), 73(10), 168A & 169 of CGST Act
FACTS (Para-wise integrated narrative)
The petitioner, a sole proprietor conducting business under “Tara Trading Co.” and registered under GST since 01.07.2017 with GSTIN 07AQXPR6876N1ZD, received an order dated 18.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the CGST Act pursuant to a show-cause notice dated 22.09.2023 (Paras 1–4; ).
The petitioner contended that the SCN was never effectively served because it was uploaded under the category “Additional Notices and Orders,” which, according to him, was not reasonably accessible on the GST portal. He argued that notices were required to be placed under the primary tab “Notices and Orders,” and therefore the impugned order was passed without proper service of the SCN (Para 5; ).
The petitioner additionally challenged Notification 09/2023-CT dated 31.03.2023, issued under Section 168A, extending the limitation for passing orders under Section 73(9) for FY 2017-18, and further asserted that the SCN itself was time-barred (Paras 2–3).
QUESTIONS / ISSUES (Derived from Court’s framing)
-
Whether uploading of an SCN under the tab “Additional Notices and Orders” constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act when such placement prevents reasonable access by the taxpayer.
-
Whether the consequent order under Section 73 dated 18.12.2023 could be sustained when the underlying SCN is held not to have been properly served.
-
Whether limitation under Section 73(10) (as extended through Notification 09/2023-CT) was correctly applied — although the Court ultimately did not examine this issue in view of the outcome on service.
OBSERVATIONS OF THE COURT (Paras 6–9)
The Court noted that the issue was squarely covered by its earlier decision in ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. UOI, where it was held that mere uploading of a notice under “Additional Notices” does not satisfy Section 169 service requirements (Para 6; ).
Quoting ACE Cardiopathy, the Court reiterated that Section 169 requires meaningful communication and that service is not complete merely because a notice is placed somewhere on the portal. Reliance was placed on the Madras High Court judgment in East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd., which had directed GSTN to fix the design flaw caused by having two separate heads:
-
“View Notices and Orders,” and
-
“View Additional Notices and Orders.”
This bifurcation had caused taxpayers to miss notices inadvertently (Para 7; ).
The Court recognized that although the portal has since been redesigned to consolidate both tabs, the impugned SCN was issued before this correction, and therefore improper placement vitiated the service (Para 8; ).
JUDGMENT / VERDICT (Paras 9–12)
The Court set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 issued under Section 73, holding that the foundation SCN was not validly served (Para 9).
The matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
The petitioner was granted two weeks to file a reply to the SCN (Para 10).
The authority was directed to grant a proper opportunity of hearing and pass a reasoned order (Para 11).
The writ petition and pending applications were accordingly disposed of (Para 12).
CASE LAW REFERRED – SUMMARY TABLE
| Case | Court | Principle Held | Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|
| ACE Cardiopathy Solutions (P.) Ltd. v. UOI | Delhi HC | Uploading notice under “Additional Notices” is not valid service under Section 169. | Binding precedent directly settling the issue in favour of the petitioner. |
| East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. AC (ST) | Madras HC | GST portal design causing notices to appear in two different headings is defective; authorities directed to rectify. | Forms the jurisprudential basis for holding that taxpayers may miss notices and service cannot be presumed. |
BETWEEN FINE LINES (Practical Trade Takeaways)
This decision reinforces that technical placement of notices on the GST portal has real legal consequences. If an SCN is not placed under the main “Notices and Orders” tab, service is defective and the entire demand collapses. Businesses should regularly review both primary and supplementary tabs on the GST portal, but authorities also bear a statutory obligation to ensure clear, accessible, and unequivocal communication, failing which adjudication cannot proceed. The ruling strengthens taxpayer rights against demands arising from inadequately served electronic notices.
Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”
