M/S Azad Communication vs. State Of U.P. Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Azad Communication, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 20, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period July 2017 to March 2018. The core of the dispute revolves around the proper communication of this order. The petitioner contended that the order was not uploaded to their portal in the required manner, specifically not appearing under the "view notices and orders" tab, but rather under a "additional notice and orders" tab. This, they argued, prevented them from seeking timely legal remedies. The respondent State, through its Standing Counsel, stated that the assessing officer has no control over how orders appear on the assessee's portal, suggesting the issue lies with the GST Network.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the communication of the impugned order. It found no material to reject the petitioner's assertion that the order was not reflected under the "view notices and orders" tab. The Court noted that a separate dispute existed regarding whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer. Finding no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The operative directions were that the petitioner could treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. Subsequently, the assessing officer was directed to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within one month from the service of this fresh notice. The petitioner undertook to appear on the date fixed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated December 20, 2023, passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, was duly communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed procedure, specifically by appearing under the "view notices and orders" tab on the assessee's portal? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was not properly communicated as it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab, thereby hindering their ability to pursue appropriate remedies within the limitation period. They relied on the High Court's decision in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's Contention: The Standing Counsel for the State contended that the assessing officer has no mechanism to control the specific tab under which an order appears on the assessee's portal. They indicated that any such issue would need to be addressed by the GST Network, the entity responsible for the web portal.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133981-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3724 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Azad Communication Respondent :- State Of U.P. Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Heard Ms. Vishaka Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
Present petition has been filed for the following substantial relief:- "(i) Issue an order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 20.12.2023 (As marked in Annex-4) passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period of July 2017 to March 2018."
Ultimately, the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue of due communication of the impugned order dated 20.12.2023. The petitioner claims that the same was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the asseseess portal under the tab "view notices and orders". Rather, it reflects under the other tab for "additional notice and orders".
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner could not seek appropriate remedy against that order, within limitation. Reliance is placed on an earlier order of the Court in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC:115008-DB.
On the other hand upon written instructions received learned Standing Counsel would contend that the assessing officer is not to blame for any error being cited by the assessee. Referring to the web portal available to the assessing officer, it had been indicated that there is no option/ choice available to the assessing officer to upload the order in the manner that it may reflect under any one of the particular tabs visible to the assessee. On query made, Shri Ankur Agarwal fairly states that if it all issue may have to be addressed by the GST Network a separate entity constituted to design maintain and run the web portal.
At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. Order Date :- 7.8.2025 Kuldeep (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.