Satish Chand Mittal Vs Sales Tax Officer SGST (Delhi High Court)

Delhi High Court has set aside a tax order issued by the Sales Tax Officer under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) Act, ruling that the show cause notice preceding the order was not properly served to the petitioner. The court highlighted issues with how notices were displayed on the GST portal at the time.The petitioner, Satish Chand Mittal, challenged the order dated December 30, 2023, which related to the period from July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that he never received the show cause notice dated September 29, 2023, or a subsequent reminder, and therefore had no opportunity to respond or attend the scheduled personal hearings. A key reason cited for the non-receipt was that the notice was placed on the GST Portal under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab, which the petitioner argued was not readily accessible or routinely checked by taxpayers.The petitioner also pointed out that the impugned show cause notice, the reminder, and the final order were all unsigned.Appearing for the respondent, the learned counsel conceded that the central issue in the case was covered by previous decisions of the Delhi High Court. Specifically, reference was made to the judgments in M/s ACE Cardiopathy Solutions Private Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation No. 2024:DHC:4108-DB) and Kamla Vohra v. Sales Tax Officer Class II/ Avato Ward 52 (Neutral Citation No.2024:DHC:5108-DB). These precedents similarly addressed the inadequacy of notice when uploaded solely under the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab. The respondent’s counsel noted that the issue with the portal’s layout had since been addressed, with the ‘Additional Notices & Orders’ tab now located adjacent to the main ‘Notices & Orders’ tab.In light of the circumstances and the acknowledged judicial precedents, the Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The court granted the respondent another opportunity to issue a proper notice to the petitioner, allowing him two weeks to file a reply. The Adjudicating Authority was directed to consider the reply and issue a fresh order after providing the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing.The ruling underscores the importance of effective communication of official notices to taxpayers and the potential for procedural lapses in online systems to invalidate subsequent actions. The case was disposed of along with pending applications.