KVJ Builders & Developers Private Limited Vs State Tax Officer
Date: March 6, 2025
Subject Matter
SCN sent by email is valid despite upload under wrong tab on the portal
Summary
The petitioner, a government contractor, challenged an order issued under Section 73 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which determined tax liability for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner claimed there was an inadvertent error leading to the duplication of turnover in the returns filed for July and August 2018. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner but was missed as it was uploaded in the "additional notices and orders" tab on the GST portal rather than the "notices and orders" tab. - The petitioner argued that due to non-service of the notice, the order imposing a liability should be set aside. However, it was noted that a reminder notice had been sent via email to the petitioner prior to the determination order. The court concluded that the reminder constituted proper notification, and since the petitioner failed to respond or take any action after receiving the email, the issuance of the order did not violate the principles of natural justice. - Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition but allowed the petitioner to pursue any available statutory remedies as per law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF KERALA HIGH COURT
Petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibit-P4 order of determination under Section 73 of the Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, (for short, ‘the Act’) issued for the financial year 2018-19.
2. Petitioner is a Government contractor engaged in carrying out works contracts for various State and Central Government departments, and is a registered taxpayer under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017/State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. According to the petitioner, due to an inadvertent error in the returns filed for the months of July and August 2018, there was a duplication of turnover. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.12.2023, which was not noticed by the petitioner, as it was uploaded in the additional notices and orders tab instead of notices and orders tab in the portal. As a result of failure to notice the show cause notices, petitioner could not file a reply or appear for determination, and hence, an order was issued on 23.04.2024 imposing a huge liability. Petitioner challenges the said order in this proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3. Petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in M/s. Ramanattu Motor Corp vs. State of Kerala [2025 SCC Online KER 1218], and contends that since the show cause notice was uploaded only in the additional notices and orders tab, he was unaware of if and due to non-service of notice, the order of determination ought to be set aside.
4. I have heard Sri. K. N. Sreekumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Smt. Jasmin M. M., the learned Government Pleader.
5. In M/s. Ramanattu Motor Corp’s case (Supra), this Court had observed that during a particular period respondents used to upload show cause notices only in the additional notices and orders tab instead of notices and orders tab. There was an absence of proper instructions to that effect as well. It was held that in such circumstances there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. Changes were brought in the portal sometime before 16.02.2024 providing specific instructions on the same page in the portal indicating that show cause notice under Section 73 of the Act will also be uploaded in the additional notices and orders tab.
6. However, in the instant case, a distinction is noticed with that of the facts in M/s. Ramanattu Motor Corp’s case. Though the show cause notice in the instant case was uploaded only in the additional notices and orders tab, a reminder notice was issued to the petitioner on 05.04.2024 by e-mail. Atleast when that e-mail was received, which is not disputed, petitioner could have verified the existence of the show cause notice and could have responded. Failure to respond despite reminder, leads this Court to conclude that there was service of notice.
7. In view of the above, it cannot be held that the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner ought to have initiated appropriate steps to pursue the statutory remedies enjoined by law.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed, reserving the liberty of the petitioner to pursue his statutory remedies if available and in accordance with law.