M/S Alarbab Scrap Traders vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Alarbab Scrap Traders, is challenging an order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Sambhal, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This order created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contends that notices issued under Section 73 of the Act were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the notice and the subsequent order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The Department, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt, as there was no material to reject the contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab. The Court found that the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant that the petitioner was not duly communicated. Relying on its previous judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 02.03.2022. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, providing at least 15 days' clear notice in the manner prescribed by law, and to proceed further based on that notice. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, and therefore, there was no outstanding demand. The issue of whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer was not explicitly decided but was implicitly addressed by the remand.
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 petitioner, thereby making the impugned order dated 02.03.2022 valid and binding. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and the impugned order were not properly communicated as they were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which they were unaware of. This prevented them from responding or challenging the order within the limitation period. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024) and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023). Revenue's Arguments: The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, based on written instructions, contended that the assessing officer has no option to choose the tab for uploading and that the issue might need to be addressed by the GST Network. However, they did not dispute the fact that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).
Sections Cited
Section 74, Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4598 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
This petition is directed against order dated 02.03.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Sambhal, 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 73 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) : Niraj Kumar Singh, Vishakha Kshatriya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Alarbab Scrap Traders .....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 order impugned dated 02.03.2022 is 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 15, 2025 K.K. Maurya WTAX No. 4598 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.