M/S Khuwaja Cement Store vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Khuwaja Cement Store, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 29, 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 was the alleged improper communication of this order. The petitioner contended that the order was not uploaded to the GST portal in the designated "view notices and orders" tab, but rather under a different tab for "additional notice and orders." This, the petitioner argued, prevented them from seeking appropriate legal remedies within the prescribed limitation period. The State-respondents, through the Standing Counsel, argued that the assessing officer had no control over how the order appeared on the portal, suggesting the issue lay with the GST Network's design. The Court noted that no material existed to reject the petitioner's claim regarding the order's visibility on the portal.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt regarding the communication of the impugned order. It found no material 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 noted that a separate dispute existed concerning whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer. Given these circumstances, the Court determined that keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter-affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of with directions for the assessee to treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. The assessing officer was then directed to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order within one month from the service of that notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated April 29, 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? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was not uploaded to the correct tab on the GST portal, thereby hindering their ability to pursue remedies within the limitation period. They relied on the High Court's decision in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Revenue's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the State-respondents contended that the assessing officer lacked the functionality to choose the specific tab under which an order would appear on the portal. They indicated that the GST Network, responsible for the portal's design and maintenance, would be the entity to address such issues.