M/S Neeraj Traders vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Neeraj Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 16.02.2023 passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period October 2017 to March 2018. The core of the dispute was the alleged improper communication of this order. The petitioner contended that the order was not uploaded to their GST portal under the 'view notices and orders' tab, but rather under a different tab for 'additional notice and orders'. This prevented them from seeking timely legal remedies. The respondent, State of U.P., argued through its Standing Counsel that the assessing officer had no control over how orders appeared on the portal, suggesting the issue lay with the GST Network.
Held
The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'view notices and orders' tab, granting the petitioner the benefit of doubt. The Court noted that no material was presented to refute this claim. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that an underlying dispute existed regarding whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer. Considering these factors, the Court determined that keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter-affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioner could treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. Following this, the assessing officer was to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and then pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within one month of service of that notice. The petitioner undertook to appear on the date fixed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 16.02.2023, passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, was duly communicated to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law, specifically concerning its visibility on the GST portal under the 'view notices and orders' tab? (Question of fact and law, concerning procedural fairness and communication under GST Act). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order was not properly uploaded as it did not appear under the designated 'view notices and orders' tab on their GST portal. This failure in communication prevented them from filing an appropriate remedy within the prescribed limitation period. They relied on the High Court's earlier decision in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's arguments: The State contended that the assessing officer was not responsible for the alleged error. They stated that the web portal did not provide the assessing officer with an option to upload orders in a manner that would ensure their appearance under specific tabs visible to the assessee. The Standing Counsel acknowledged that any resolution might require intervention from the GST Network.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142724-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3953 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Neeraj Traders 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 16.02.2023 (As marked in Annex-4) passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period of October 2017 to March 2018."
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.