M/S Service Company INDIA vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Service Company India, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated September 27, 2022, and August 29, 2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Noida. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2022-2023. The petitioner contended that the notices under Section 62 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the notice and the subsequent order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The revenue did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The reasoning was based on the fact that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, and not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing remedies within the limitation period. This was found to be covered by the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated September 27, 2022, and August 29, 2022. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 clear days' notice, in accordance with the law, and thereafter, further proceedings were to take place. The ratio decidendi is that improper uploading of statutory notices on the GST portal, leading to the assessee's lack of awareness, vitiates the proceedings and warrants a fresh opportunity to be heard.

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 challenging such orders? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were not properly communicated as they were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, making them unaware of the proceedings. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which remanded a similar matter. Revenue's Contention: The 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 and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).