Metro Trading Company vs. Deputy Commissioner State Tax Sector-1 Muzaffarnagar And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Metro Trading Company, is challenging an order dated April 27, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner State Tax, Sector-1, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. This order created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2018-2019. The petitioner contends that the notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the notices and the impugned order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The revenue, represented by the State, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the impugned order was not reflected under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, but rather under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. This finding aligns with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was already deposited. The reasoning was that the improper upload of the order prejudiced the petitioner's right to a fair hearing and timely challenge. Therefore, the impugned order was quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least fifteen days' clear notice, in the manner prescribed by law, for further proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders 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 impacting the limitation period for challenging such orders? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders 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 time. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which dealt with a similar issue of improper upload of notices and orders, leading to a remand. Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They also conceded that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).