M/S Fi Leather Products vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Fi Leather Products, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated April 2, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Kanpur, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that they were unaware of the notices and the order because the notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The respondent, State of U.P. and others, did not dispute these contentions regarding the portal upload and acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, preventing the petitioner from being aware and responding within the limitation period. The Court found the issue to be covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Consequently, the impugned order dated April 2, 2024, 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 to proceed further based on that notice. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was already deposited.

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, thereby enabling them to respond within the prescribed limitation period, as per Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that they were unaware of the notices and the impugned order due to the incorrect tab where they were uploaded. They relied on the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which held that such uploading prevented the petitioner from seeking a remedy within the limitation period and led to a remand. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, through learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the facts regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies judgment and that the assessing officer had no option to choose specific tabs for uploading.