M/S Raj Traders vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Raj Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 15, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The core of the dispute revolved around 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 timely legal remedies. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that the assessing officer had no control over how orders appeared on the portal, suggesting the issue lay with the GST Network.
Held
The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the impugned order was not reflected under the "view notices and orders" tab, granting the petitioner the benefit of doubt. The Court noted that no material existed to reject this claim. Furthermore, the Court 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. Given these circumstances, the Court deemed it unproductive to keep the petition pending or to relegate the petitioner to statutory remedies. Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner could treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. Following this, the assessing officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least fifteen days' clear notice, after which a reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within one month from the date of service of notice. The petitioner undertook to appear on the date fixed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated December 15, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, was duly communicated to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law, thereby enabling them to avail statutory remedies within the stipulated period? (Mixed question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under GST law). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was not uploaded on the GST portal in the designated "view notices and orders" tab, but under a different section. This failure in proper communication prejudiced their ability to file a timely appeal or other remedies, relying on the precedent set in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Revenue's Arguments: The Standing Counsel for the State contended that the assessing officer lacked the functionality to choose the specific tab under which an order would appear. They indicated that any issues with the portal's display mechanism would likely need to be addressed by the GST Network, a separate entity responsible for the portal's design and maintenance.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4653 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Heard Mr. Ravindra Kumar Rastogi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
Present petition has been filed for the following substantial relief:- "(i) Issue an order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.12.2023 (As marked in Annex-4) passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period of July 2017 to March 2018."
Ultimately, the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue of due communication of the impugned order dated 15.12.2024. The petitioner claims that the same was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the asseseess 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 M/s Mohini 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravindra Kumar Rastogi, Vishakha Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Raj Traders .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)
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. 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. September 17, 2025 K.K. Maurya WTAX No. 4653 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.