M/S Bhagwati Veener Gramudyog Samit vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Bhagwati Veener Gramudyog Samit, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated 04.01.2024 and 13.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Bareilly, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, making them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The State, through the learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the impugned orders were not reflected under the 'view notices and orders' tab. The Court found no material to reject the petitioner's contention that the order was not uploaded in the manner required. Citing the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 04.01.2024 and 13.02.2024. The ratio decidendi is that failure to upload notices and orders on the designated 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, leading to the assessee's lack of knowledge and inability to respond within limitation, warrants relief. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days clear notice in the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings would take place.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes due communication to the assessee, thereby impacting the limitation period for response and challenge? The petitioner argued that the non-compliance with the proper uploading procedure on the GST portal resulted in their lack of knowledge of the notices and orders, preventing them from appearing before the authority or questioning the validity of the impugned orders within the prescribed limitation period. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The respondent (State) did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab on which the notices and orders were uploaded and conceded that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4814 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
This petition is directed against orders dated 04.01.2024 and 13.02.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction Bareilly, Sector-3, Bareilly (A), Bareilly, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 whereby demand has been created against the petitioner for the financial year 2018-19. 2. Submission has been made that notices issued under Section 74 of the Act, were uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab of the G.S.T. Portal and consequently, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notice as well as passing of the order, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned order within the period of limitation.
Submission has been made that this Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.7.2024 taking note of the said aspect of the matter wherein notices have not been uploaded on the 'Due Notices and Orders' and instead uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders', came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the authority.
Learned counsel appearing for the Department based on the material available on record does not dispute the contentions raised pertaining to uploading of the notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab instead of 'Due Notices and Orders' Tab and the fact that the issue as raised is covered by judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (Supra).
In the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (Supra) a co-ordinate Bench of this Court inter alia observed and came to the following
conclusion:- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Bhagwati Veener Gramudyog Samit .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another .....Respondent(s)
"
Ultimately, vide last order dated 05.04.2024 the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue due communication of the impugned order dated 12.07.2023. The petitioner claims that the same was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the assesses portal under the tab "view notices and orders". Rather, it reflects under the other tab for "additional notice and orders".
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner could not seek appropriate remedy against that order, within limitation. Reliance is placed on an earlier order of the Court in Writ Tax No.551 of 2023 (M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 03.05.2023 [Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC:115008-DB].
On the other hand upon written instructions received learned Standing Counsel would contend that the assessing officer is not to blame for any error being cited by the assessee. Referring to the web portal available to the assessing officer, it had been indicated that there is no option/choice available to the assessing officer to upload the order in the manner that it may reflect under any one of the particular tabs visible to the assessee. On query made, Shri Ankur Agarwal fairly states that if it all issue may have to be addressed by the GST Network a separate entity constituted to design maintain and run the web portal.
At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore, there is no outstanding demand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner."
In view of the submissions made and the judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (Supra) the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The orders impugned dated 04.01.2024 and 13.02.2024 are quashed and set aside.
The Assessing Officer may issue a fresh at least 15 days clear notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed in accordance with law and based on the said notice, further proceedings may take place. September 23, 2025 K.K. Maurya WTAX No. 4814 of 2025 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.