M/S Jaiswal Cold Drinks vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jaiswal Cold Drinks, is challenging two orders dated April 18, 2024, and December 27, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction, Kaushambi Sector Prayagraj. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2017-2018. The petitioner contends 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. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of these proceedings and could not appear before the authority or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The revenue, through the learned counsel for the Department, did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the incorrect tab.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated April 18, 2024, and December 27, 2023. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt because 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 challenging them within the limitation period. This reasoning aligns with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with the law, and to conduct further proceedings based on this fresh notice. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with proper communication procedures on the GST portal, leading to a lack of awareness for the assessee, warrants relief and a fresh opportunity to be heard.

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 due communication to the petitioner, thereby impacting the limitation period for challenging the impugned orders? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to the notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, they were unaware of the proceedings and thus could not avail their remedies within the prescribed limitation period. They relied on the High Court's judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Revenue's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department, based on instructions, did not dispute the 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). The Department's earlier submission in the cited case indicated that the assessing officer has no control over which tab the order reflects and that this issue might need to be addressed by the GST Network.