M/S Baijnath Scrap Center vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Baijnath Scrap Center, is challenging an order dated July 21, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-14, Agra, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends 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 claims to have been unaware of the proceedings and unable to appear before the authority or question the validity of the orders within the limitation period. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, does not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The reasoning was based on the fact 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 availing their remedies within the limitation period. This finding aligns with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially as the disputed amount was stated to be lying in deposit. The impugned order dated July 21, 2023, was quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days clear notice in the manner prescribed by law, and further proceedings were to take place based on this fresh notice. No issue was expressly left 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 due communication to the petitioner, thereby affecting their ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were not uploaded in the manner required, as they did not appear under the 'view notices and orders' tab. This prevented them from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period. They relied on the 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 Argument: The revenue, based on material on record, did not dispute the contentions regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).