M/S Shree Ji Trading Corporation vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/S Shree Ji Trading Corporation, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 21, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Kanpur. The core of the dispute revolves around the communication of this order. The petitioner contended that the order was not uploaded on the GST portal in the required manner, specifically that it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab but rather under a different tab for "additional notice and orders." This alleged improper communication prevented the petitioner from seeking an appropriate remedy within the prescribed limitation period. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that the assessing officer has no control over how orders are displayed on the portal, suggesting the issue lies with the GST Network. The disputed amount is stated to be lying in deposit with the State Government.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the communication of the impugned order. There was no material to reject the petitioner's contention that the order was not reflecting under the "view notices and orders" tab. The Court noted that an earlier order had already raised a dispute regarding whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer. Finding no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter-affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, given that the disputed amount was already deposited, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was directed to treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. Subsequently, the assessing officer was to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and pass a reasoned order within one month of service of notice. The petitioner undertook to appear on the fixed date.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated April 21, 2024, was communicated to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law, specifically concerning its display on the GST portal under the "view notices and orders" tab, thereby affecting the petitioner's ability to avail timely remedies? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in electronic communication of tax orders). Petitioner's Arguments: - The order was not uploaded correctly, as it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab on the GST portal. - This improper communication prevented the petitioner from filing an appropriate remedy within the limitation period. - Reliance was placed on the High Court's earlier order in Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023 (M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another). Revenue's Arguments: - The assessing officer is not responsible for any alleged error in how the order is displayed. - The web portal does not provide the assessing officer with an option to upload orders in a manner that dictates their appearance under specific tabs visible to the assessee. - The issue of portal display is a matter for the GST Network.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT TAX No. - 4480 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.
Heard Sri Shardool Agrahari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Present petition has been filed for the following relief:- "(i) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.04.2024 passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Kanpur. (ii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper; (iii) award costs of the petition to the petitioner throughout."
Ultimately, the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue due communication of the impugned order dated April 21, 2024. 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Kesharwani, Shardool Agrahari Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. M/S Shree Ji Trading Corporation .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)
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. September 9, 2025 Dev WTAX No. 4480 of 2025 2 (Praveen Kumar Giri,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) DEV PRAKASH 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.