Samridh Electronics vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, Samridh Electronics, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act by the assessing authority. The core of the dispute was the alleged improper communication of this order. The petitioner contended that the order was not uploaded to the GST portal in the required manner, specifically that it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab, but rather under a different tab for "additional notice and orders." This, the petitioner argued, prevented them from seeking appropriate legal remedies within the prescribed limitation period. The petitioner relied on a previous High Court order in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another.
Held
The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding the improper communication of the impugned order. It was noted that no material existed to reject the petitioner's claim that the order was not reflecting under the "view notices and orders" tab. The Court also acknowledged that a separate dispute existed regarding whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer. Given these circumstances, the Court deemed it unproductive to keep the petition pending or to relegate the petitioner to the statutory remedy. The Court directed that the petitioner could treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. Subsequently, the assessing officer was to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within one month of the service of this fresh notice. The petitioner undertook to appear on the fixed date.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 was communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Goods and Services Tax Act, specifically concerning its visibility on the GST portal under the "view notices and orders" tab. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the order was not properly uploaded as it did not appear under the "view notices and orders" tab, thereby hindering their ability to file a timely appeal or remedy. They cited the precedent of M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's Contention: The State contended that the assessing officer had no control over how the order appeared on the portal, as the functionality was managed by the GST Network. They stated that the assessing officer could not choose a specific tab for uploading. The Standing Counsel fairly conceded that the issue might need to be addressed by the GST Network.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:132016-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 3644 of 2025 Petitioner :- Samridh Electronics Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
Present petition has been filed for the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act by the assessing authority- respondent no.3 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition)."
Ultimately, the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue due communication of the impugned order dated 21.12.2023. The petitioner claims that the same was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the asseseess portal under the tab "view notices and orders". Rather, it reflects under the other tab for "additional notice and orders".
Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner could not seek appropriate remedy against that order, within limitation. Reliance is placed on an earlier order of the Court in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another, Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC:115008-DB.
On the other hand upon written instructions received learned Standing Counsel would contend that the assessing officer is not to blame for any error being cited by the assessee. Referring to the web portal available to the assessing officer, it had been indicated that there is no option/ choice available to the assessing officer to upload the order in the manner that it may reflect under any one of the particular tabs visible to the assessee. On query made, Shri Ankur Agarwal fairly states that if it all issue may have to be addressed by the GST Network a separate entity constituted to design maintain and run the web portal.
At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Kuldeep (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) KULDEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.