M/S Star Automobiles vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Star Automobiles, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.08.2024 passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period April 2019 to March 2020. The core of the dispute revolved around the proper communication of a prior order dated 20.12.2023. The petitioner contended that this order was not uploaded correctly on the GST portal, as it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab but rather under a "other tab for additional notice and orders." This alleged improper communication prevented the petitioner from seeking a timely remedy. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, argued that the assessing officer had no control over how orders were displayed on the portal and that any issue with the web portal's functionality would need to be addressed by GST Network.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt regarding the proper communication of the impugned order. There was no material presented to refute the petitioner's claim that the order was not reflected under the "view notices and orders" tab. The Court also noted that a separate dispute existed concerning whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer. Finding no utility in keeping the petition pending, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The operative directions were that the petitioner could treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. Subsequently, the assessing officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within one month from the date of service of this fresh notice. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 was duly communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the law, specifically concerning its visibility on the GST portal under the "view notices and orders" tab, as contemplated by Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act? The petitioner argued that the order was not properly communicated because it was not visible under the designated "view notices and orders" tab on the GST portal, thereby preventing them from availing timely remedies. They relied on the precedent set in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. The respondent-State, through the Standing Counsel, contended that the assessing officer lacked the discretion to choose the specific tab under which an order would be displayed. They stated that the web portal's functionality, which determines the display of uploaded orders, is managed by the GST Network, and the assessing officer is not responsible for any such display errors.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142752-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3952 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Star Automobiles Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Rastogi,Vishakha Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Heard Ms. Vishaka Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
Present petition has been filed for the following substantial relief:- "(i) Issue an order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.08.2024 (As marked in Annex-4) passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period of April 2019 to March 2020."
Ultimately, the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue of due communication of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023. The petitioner claims that the same was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the asseseess portal under the tab "view notices and orders". Rather, it reflects under the other tab for "additional notice and orders".
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner could not seek appropriate remedy against that order, within limitation. Reliance is placed on an earlier order of the Court in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC:115008-DB.
On the other hand upon written instructions received learned Standing Counsel would contend that the assessing officer is not to blame for any error being cited by the assessee. Referring to the web portal available to the assessing officer, it had been indicated that there is no option/ choice available to the assessing officer to upload the order in the manner that it may reflect under any one of the particular tabs visible to the assessee. On query made, Shri Ankur Agarwal fairly states that if it all issue may have to be addressed by the GST Network a separate entity constituted to design maintain and run the web portal.
At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 K.K. Maurya (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.