M/S Nirmal Singh And Co. vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nirmal Singh And Co., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 31.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Chandauli, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This order created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the notice issued under Section 73 and the subsequent order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the proceedings and unable to appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. The revenue, represented by the State of U.P. and two others, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the notices and order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, and not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. This lack of proper communication prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing their statutory remedies within the limitation period. The Court found the situation analogous to the facts in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), where a similar issue of improper uploading of orders led to a remand. The Court reasoned that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was stated to be lying in deposit. Therefore, the impugned order dated 31.12.2023 was 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 accordance with law, and thereafter proceed with the matter.

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, thereby enabling them to respond within the prescribed limitation period, as contemplated under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to the notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, they were unaware of the proceedings and therefore could not appear before the authority or challenge the impugned order 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. Revenue's Contention: The 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 and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).