M/S Hyper Energy Solutions vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Hyper Energy Solutions, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated September 26, 2023, and December 8, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction, Bulandshahar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, rendering them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The department did not dispute these contentions, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
Held
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated September 26, 2023, and December 8, 2023. The Court followed the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., where a similar issue of notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab was considered. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the improper uploading, which prevented them from being aware of the proceedings and responding within the limitation period. The Court reasoned 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 already deposited. The operative direction was for the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in the manner prescribed by law, and thereafter proceed with further proceedings. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
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 proper communication to the assessee, thereby impacting the limitation period for response and challenge? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and statutory compliance). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that uploading on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not amount to proper communication, preventing them from being aware of the notices and orders and thus unable to respond or seek remedies within the prescribed time. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Revenue's Argument: The learned Standing Counsel for the department did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The department's counsel, based on instructions, indicated that the assessing officer has no control over which tab the order appears on and that this is a matter for the GST Network.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4572 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
This petition is directed against orders dated September 26, 2023 and December 8, 2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction, Bulandshahar Sector-1, Bulandshahar, Ghaziabad II, U.P. under Section 73 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 73 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) : Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Hyper Energy Solutions .....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 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 orders impugned dated September 26, 2023 and December 8, 2023 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 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.