M/S S Traders vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 20.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Prayagraj, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the notice and order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and could not appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. The Department did not dispute these contentions, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 20.12.2023. The Court followed its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 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, being unaware of the notice and order due to its placement on the portal, was deprived of the opportunity to respond or seek remedies within the limitation period. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The operative direction was for 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 the notice and order 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 the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically concerning the principles of natural justice and due process? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the notice and order were not properly communicated as they were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which they were unaware of. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the prescribed limitation period. They relied on the High Court's judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's Argument: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. judgment.