GST portal uploading constitutes proper service for SCN, not necessarily through email/SMS: HC

Case Details: Pandidorai Sethupathi Raja v. Superintendent of Central Tax - [2022] 145 taxmann.com 632 (Madras)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Dr. Anita Sumanth, J.
  • T.R. Ramesh, Ramanathan, K. Soundara Rajan & D. Vijayakumar for the Petitioner & Others.
  • Pramod Kumar Chopda, Mohanamurali & Mrs Hema Muralikrishnan for the Respondent & Others.

Facts of the Case

The appellant filed an appeal against the order cancelling the registration of a supplier passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on the grounds that it was time-barred.

The supplier had filed Form GSTR-3B along with the late fee. Further, the petitioner stated to be engaged in the business of providing security services and the liability to goods and services tax is under the reverse charge mechanism. Since outward supplies attract nil rate of tax, there is no requirement for payment of interest as well.

High Court Held

A petition was then filed before the High Court seeking the revocation of the cancellation of the supplier’s registration. The court found that the delay in filing the application for the restoration of the registration was due to the supplier’s ill-health and was therefore condonable. Additionally, the court found that the delay was also condonable due to a misunderstanding by the supplier’s consultant regarding the procedure for filing returns, as well as due to hardship, mental agony, and financial loss caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court therefore allowed the petitioner and directed the appeals to be heard on the merits.

Further, in the given order, the High court held that making an order available on a common portal would be considered ‘tendering’ the order to the recipient. The court also found that there was no conscious intention on the part of the legislature to exclude ‘uploading’ as a mode of service. The court further noted that the necessity for an alert by way of SMS or email to inform the recipient that the notice or order had been uploaded on the portal was obviated because it was the obligation of taxpayers to file returns monthly, which would result in accessing the portal at least once per month. Therefore, the court concluded that uploading orders on a common portal constitutes a proper mode of service.