M/S Jai Shree Ram Doot Trading Co. vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jai Shree Ram Doot Trading Co., filed a writ petition challenging orders dated April 20, 2024, and December 26, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Bareilly, under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. 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 claimed to be unaware of the proceedings and unable to appear or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the 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 orders were not properly communicated. Citing the precedent in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court observed that the issue of due communication of the order was critical. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was already lying in deposit with the State Government, meaning there was no outstanding demand. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated April 20, 2024, and December 26, 2023. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in the manner prescribed by 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 due communication to the petitioner under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the non-compliance with the prescribed method of uploading notices and orders on the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab meant they were not properly informed of the proceedings. This prevented them from appearing before the authority and challenging the impugned orders within the statutory limitation period. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute the factual contention that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They also did not dispute that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).