M/S M/S Saurabh Enterprises vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Saurabh Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 06.04.2024 and 24.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Prayagraj, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, making 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.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the impugned orders were not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab. The Court found no material to reject the petitioner's contention that the order was not properly communicated. Citing the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Court observed that the issue of due communication of the impugned order was central. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, meaning there was no outstanding demand. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 06.04.2024 and 24.12.2023. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days clear notice, in accordance with law, and thereafter, further proceedings were to 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 proper communication to the assessee, thereby impacting the validity of subsequent proceedings under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? 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 could not appear before the authority or challenge the impugned orders within the period of limitation. They relied on the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).