M/S U P Plywood vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S U P Plywood, is challenging an order dated August 12, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3 Bhadohi, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of these communications and unable to appear before the authority or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The Department, represented by the 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 allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated August 12, 2024. The Court found that the issue of notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). The Court noted that the Department did not dispute this factual contention. The reasoning was that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'view notices and orders' tab, preventing them from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period. The Court observed that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was lying in deposit. The operative direction was for the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice of at least 15 days clear notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed in accordance with law, and thereafter, further proceedings could 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 of such notices and orders under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, and the relevant rules, thereby impacting the petitioner's ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to the notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, they were unaware of the proceedings and thus could not appear before the authority or challenge the validity of the impugned orders within the period of limitation. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the Department, based on written instructions, did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They referred to the web portal's limitations, stating there was no option for the assessing officer to upload orders in a manner that would reflect under a specific tab visible to the assessee. They also acknowledged that the issue might need to be addressed by the GST Network.
Sections Cited
Section 74
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4563 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
This petition is directed against order dated August 12, 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3 Bhadohi under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 whereby demand has been created against the petitioner.
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 the petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notices as well as passing of the orders, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned orders 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 coordinate Bench of this Court, inter alia, observed and came to the following
conclusion:- Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ayush Kumar Mishra, Raj Kumar Maurya Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S U P Plywood .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. 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 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 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, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State 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 August 12, 2024 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 12, 2025 Kuldeep (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) KULDEEP SINGH 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.