M/S Virendra Kumar Surendra Prakash vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Virendra Kumar Surendra Prakash, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 12, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period April 2018 to March 2019. The core of the dispute concerns the proper communication of this order. The petitioner contended that the order was not uploaded correctly on the GST portal, as it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab, but rather under a different tab for "additional notice and orders." This alleged improper uploading prevented the petitioner from seeking appropriate legal remedies within the prescribed limitation period. The State-respondents, through the learned Standing Counsel, argued that the assessing officer has no control over how orders appear on the portal and that the GST Network is responsible for its design and maintenance. The Court noted that there was no material to reject the petitioner's claim regarding the order's visibility on the portal and also acknowledged an existing dispute about whether all petitioner's replies were considered on merits.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt regarding the proper communication of the impugned order. It was found that there was no material on record to reject the petitioner's contention that the order was not reflected under the "view notices and orders" tab on the GST portal. The Court also acknowledged that a separate dispute existed regarding whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer on merits. Given these circumstances, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter-affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with specific directions. The assessee was permitted to treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. Subsequently, the assessing officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within one month from the date of service of this fresh notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated April 12, 2024, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, was duly communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed procedure, specifically concerning its visibility on the GST portal under the "view notices and orders" tab? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on the interpretation and application of GST portal functionalities and communication requirements). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was not properly uploaded as it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab, thereby preventing them from availing timely remedies. They relied on the case of M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Revenue's Contention: The State-respondents contended that the assessing officer has no discretion in selecting the tab under which an order appears on the portal and that the GST Network is responsible for the portal's design and maintenance. They stated that the assessing officer is not at fault for any alleged error in the display.