M/S Skama Biotech vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Skama Biotech, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST, Sector-1, Bijnor, under Section 74 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 claimed to be unaware of the proceedings and unable to appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. The respondent State 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 18.07.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, GST, Sector-1, Bijnor. The Court followed its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The reasoning was that the petitioner was not properly communicated the notice and order as they were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which led to the petitioner being unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The Court granted the petitioner 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 the manner prescribed by law, and to conduct further proceedings based on this fresh notice. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, and there was no outstanding demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a GST 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 assessee, thereby affecting their right to respond and seek remedies 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 uploading notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant they were unaware of the proceedings. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging 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 (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024). Respondent's Argument: The learned Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They also acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).