M/S Amit Chem vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Amit Chem, is challenging an order dated December 17, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Sector-10, State Tax, NOIDA, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order 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 the proceedings and could not respond within the limitation period. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated December 17, 2023. The Court's decision was based on the reasoning that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and responding within the limitation period. This aligns with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, where a similar issue of improper uploading of notices led to a remand. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The operative direction was for the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, at least 15 days clear, in the manner prescribed by law, and to conduct further proceedings based on that notice. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

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 petitioner under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby affecting the petitioner's ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant they were unaware of the proceedings. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order 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 Contention: The revenue, based on the material on record, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the tab on which notices and orders were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).