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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ayansh Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated April 26, 2024, and December 16, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction, Unnao. These orders created a GST demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and could not appear before the authority or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute these contentions, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the improper uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, which led to the petitioner's lack of awareness and inability to respond within the limitation period. This finding is based on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the GST portal is to ensure proper communication, and uploading on an 'additional' tab, rather than the primary 'due' tab, fails to achieve this objective. The ratio decidendi is that if statutory notices are not communicated through the designated and accessible channels, the assessee should not be prejudiced. Consequently, the impugned orders dated April 26, 2024, and December 16, 2023, were quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least fifteen clear days' notice, in accordance with the law, for further proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of GST 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 enabling them to respond within the prescribed limitation period, as per Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: 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. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or questioning the validity of the 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 respondent, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).