M/S Kn Infracore Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kn Infracore Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 21.04.2024 and 22.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ghaziabad. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond or question the orders within the limitation period. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders dated 21.04.2024 and 22.12.2023. The Court followed its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., which held that uploading notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, did not constitute proper communication. The reasoning was that the petitioner was not made aware of the proceedings, thus preventing them from availing remedies within the limitation period. The ratio decidendi is that proper communication of tax demands and orders is essential for due process, and if such communication is flawed due to portal functionality or procedural oversight, the assessee should be given a chance to present their case. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, and further proceedings were to take place based on this fresh 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 petitioner, thereby making the impugned orders valid and binding? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief, including the quashing of the impugned orders and a fresh opportunity to respond, given the alleged improper uploading of notices and orders? The petitioner argued that the uploading on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab meant they were unaware of the proceedings, preventing them from participating or challenging the orders within the prescribed time. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. The respondent, through the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies judgment.