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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Raj Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector-2, Banda, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service 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 claims to have been unaware of the proceedings and unable to appear before the authority or question the order within the limitation period. The revenue 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 09.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the uploading of the notice and order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, leading to their unawareness and inability to respond within the limitation period, was not disputed by the revenue. This situation was held to be covered by the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. As a consequence, the Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, providing at least 15 days' clear notice in the manner prescribed by law. Further proceedings would then take place based on this fresh notice. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was duly served with the notice and order under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, given that they were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Portal? (Question of fact and law) Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that uploading the notice and order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, resulted in them being unaware of the proceedings. This prevented them from appearing before the authority and challenging the order within the prescribed limitation period. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024). Revenue's contention: The learned Standing Counsel, based on the material on record, 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.