M/S 360 Realtors LLP vs. The Department Of Revenue And 2 Others

Heard Sri Vishwaraj Raj Singh along with Sri Manish Tiwari and Varunendra Kishore Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned counsel for the Revenue and Sri Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the UPGSTIN

Challenge has been raised to the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by respondent no. 2 under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017 for the financial year 2019-2020 creating a demand of tax Rs.1,14,34,191/-.

Submission is, though the petitioner is a regular tax payer and was working on the GST Portal. At the same time, he was not served with the show cause notice dated 22.05.2024. Thus, he was not aware of the date of filing of reply and date of personal hearing if any, at the relevant time. Similarly, the petitioner was not aware of the impugned order being passed against him on 23.07.2024 as that order was not served upon him through physical mode. Both, the show cause notice and the impugned order were put up on the common portal under the Tab meant for 'Additional Notices and Orders'. The notice and order was not directly visible on the home page/ dash board. Hence, the assessee was not facilitated with an option to easily view that notice and order and to respond to the same within reasonable time.

Only after the recovery proceedings were initiated and the bank account of the petitioner came to be attached, the petitioner learnt of the proceedings and the impugned order through the bank authorities. He Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Varunendra Kishore Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gopal Verma M/S 360 Realtors Llp .....Petitioner(s) The Department Of Revenue And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

Learned counsel for the Revenue would contend, Section 169 (1) (d) permits the adjudicating authority to serve notices and orders on the assessee through the common portal. To the extent the assessee admits that he was working on the common portal, it may be presumed that he had due knowledge of the notice and the order. Merely because the petitioner may not have chosen to press/select the Tab for additional notices it may not be excuse to set up a fallacious plea that the petitioner has no knowledge of such proceedings or orders passed therein.

Second it has been submitted once the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, the present petition may not be maintained as no challenge has been laid to that order passed by the appeal authority.

Mr. Gopal Verma, learned counsel appearing for the GST would submit that the GSTIN is working well. No relief has been sought against GSTIN.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, in the first place it has been recognized that a considerable influx of litigation of similar nature is arising every day. Clearly, the assessees are facing difficulties in working on the GST Portal especially with respect to communication of Show Cause Notices and Adjudication Orders. Every day a large number of similar writ petitions are arising wherein numerous assessees are raising the common complaint that such notice and orders were not in their knowledge as they were not displayed promptly on the dash board upon such notices being issued or orders being passed.

We are mindful of the rigid period of limitation to file appeals under the GST regime. Under the law as declared by the Supreme Court condonation of delay cannot be granted beyond the fixed time period provided by the statute. Third, even their appeals are filed within time, the appeal authorities do not have the power to remand or remit the matter to the Adjudicating Authority. They may only pass an order on merits.

Any tax regime may work most efficiently only where the trust of the tax payers, exists. To the extent, the difficulties being faced by the assesssees in general and as cited by the petitioner appear to be genuine and not false or a pretense, the writ court may not fail in its duties to ensure that the cause of justice is served well.

The fact that the appeal authority may have rejected the appeal as time barred may not amount to an order passed in the appeal. It may only remain order passed on the application seeking condonation of delay. Only if the delay had been condoned, a regular appeal may have arisen.

Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside subject to the petitioner depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- lacs within a period of one month from today. Subject to such deposit being made, the impugned order shall stand set aside. The petitioner shall file his reply within two weeks. Thereafter the adjudicating authority may fix appropriate date for hearing and pass speaking and reasoned order dealing with the objections that may be raised by the petitioner on or before 31st March, 2026. Any amount deposited under this order shall remain subject to the final order to be passed by the adjudicating authority.

The writ petition is disposed of. October 8, 2025 Pratima (Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.) PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad PRATIMA AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad