M/S Pooja Glass Decorators vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pooja Glass Decorators, is challenging an order dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Firozabad, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 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 claims to have been unaware of the proceedings and unable to appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. The respondent-State, through the learned 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 31.03.2022. The Court relied on the precedent set 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. The reasoning was that the petitioner was prejudiced by the notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which led to their unawareness of the proceedings and inability to respond within the limitation period. 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. The ratio decidendi is that a proper and effective communication of notices and orders is essential for due process under GST law, and uploading on an obscure tab that prevents the assessee from timely response vitiates the proceedings. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice in the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings would take place.

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 on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab meant they were unaware of the notice and the subsequent order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or questioning the order's validity 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 Contention: The learned counsel for the Department, based on available material, did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading issue and acknowledged that the matter is covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).