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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Stuti Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 03.08.2023 and 23.12.2022, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, 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 2019-20. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and could not respond or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, rendering the petitioner unaware of the proceedings. This finding was based on the concession made by the Department and the precedent set in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Court reasoned that proper communication is essential for an assessee to avail their statutory remedies. Since the petitioner was deprived of this opportunity due to the manner of uploading, the impugned orders were quashed. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and to proceed further based on that notice. The principle derived is that improper uploading of statutory notices on the GST portal, leading to an assessee's lack of awareness and inability to respond within the limitation period, warrants quashing of consequential orders and a fresh opportunity for the assessee.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes proper communication to the petitioner under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, thereby entitling the petitioner to a remedy within the period of limitation? Petitioner's Argument: 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 thus could not appear before the authority or challenge the impugned orders within the prescribed time. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which dealt with a similar issue of improper uploading of notices. Respondent's Argument: 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 also conceded that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).