M/S Manik Pharma vs. State Of .P.And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Manik Pharma, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 23.04.2024 and 14.12.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bareilly, 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 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, rendering them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The Department 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 instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing their remedies within the limitation period. This finding was supported by the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 23.04.2024 and 14.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bareilly, were quashed and set aside. 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 conduct further proceedings thereafter. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, thereby affecting the petitioner's ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to the incorrect uploading of notices and orders 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 limitation period. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Respondent's Argument: The Department, based on the available record, 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.