M/S Nupad Printing Press vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nupad Printing Press, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated December 22, 2020, and December 7, 2020, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Noida. These orders, issued under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2020-21. The petitioner contended 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, making them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The department did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that 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, meant that the petitioner was not properly communicated with. This lack of proper communication prevented the petitioner from availing their statutory remedies within the prescribed time. The Court found the petitioner entitled to the benefit of doubt, aligning with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Consequently, the impugned orders dated December 22, 2020, and December 7, 2020, were 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 thereafter, further proceedings were to take place based on the fresh notice. The Court expressly left undecided the merits of the demand itself, focusing solely on the procedural defect.

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, thereby impacting their ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period, under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, resulted in their lack of awareness of the proceedings. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the impugned orders 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, which granted relief in a similar situation. Respondent's Argument: The respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh) did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).