M/S Khwaja Telecom vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Khwaja Telecom, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 31, 2023, 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 their portal under the "view notices and orders" tab, but rather under a different tab for "additional notice and orders." This, they argued, prevented them from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period. The State-respondents, through the learned 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. The Court noted that no material existed to reject the petitioner's contention regarding the order's visibility.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt, as there was no material to reject their contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the "view notices and orders" tab. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter-affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy. The Court noted that on merits, an independent dispute existed regarding whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner could 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 to the petitioner in the prescribed manner, providing at least fifteen days' clear notice. A reasoned and speaking order was to be passed within one month from the date of service of this fresh notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated December 31, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, was properly communicated to the petitioner, thereby enabling them to pursue remedies within the prescribed limitation period? (Mixed question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of communication procedures under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was not uploaded in the manner required, as it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab on their portal, but under a different tab. This prevented them from filing a timely appeal or remedy. They relied on the High Court's order in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Revenue's Contention: The State-respondents contended that the assessing officer had no choice or option to upload the order in a specific manner to appear under a particular tab. They indicated that the GST Network, a separate entity, is responsible for the web portal's design and maintenance. The Standing Counsel fairly stated that the issue might need to be addressed by the GST Network.