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 20.04.2023 and 22.10.2022 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax jurisdiction, 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 respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. It was found that the impugned orders were not reflecting under the 'view notices and orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period. Relying on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially as the disputed amount was already deposited. Consequently, the impugned orders dated 20.04.2023 and 22.10.2022 were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, providing at least 15 days' clear notice, and to conduct further proceedings in accordance with law based on this fresh notice.

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 response and challenge, as per Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that the uploading on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab meant they were unaware of the proceedings and thus could not appear before the authority or question the impugned orders within the prescribed 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, through the learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies judgment.