M/S Yogendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Yogendra Pratap Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 05.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-5, Prayagraj, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the notices and the impugned order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The revenue, represented by the CSC, did not dispute these contentions. The matter was considered in light of a previous judgment by a co-ordinate bench in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2024. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the improper uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal was not disputed by the revenue. This was consistent with the reasoning in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), where a similar issue of communication through the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab led to a remand. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the non-reflection of the order on the 'view notices and orders' tab, which prejudiced their ability to respond. The ratio decidendi is that if statutory notices and orders are not communicated through the designated and accessible portal tab, it vitiates the proceedings and denies the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and to proceed further based on that notice.

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 assessee under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, particularly concerning the opportunity to respond within the prescribed limitation period? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that uploading notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, as opposed to the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, resulted in the petitioner's lack of awareness of the proceedings and the impugned order. 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 and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent (State) did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab on which the notices and orders were uploaded. The judgment notes that the learned Standing Counsel, based on written instructions, did not dispute the contentions. The previous judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. also noted that the assessing officer has no option to control the tab for uploading, and this issue might need to be addressed by the GST Network.