M/S Tag On Digital Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Tag On Digital Private Limited, has filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 05.12.2023 and 18.09.2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction, Noida. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner's primary contention is that the notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than 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 challenge the orders within the limitation period. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 05.12.2023 and 18.09.2023. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab was not disputed by the respondent. This procedural lapse prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing their remedies within the limitation period. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which also dealt with similar issues of improper communication through the GST portal. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. Consequently, the Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice in the prescribed manner, and further proceedings were to take place based on this fresh notice. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

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 enabling them to respond within the prescribed limitation period? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the aforementioned procedural issue, and if so, what relief should be granted? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were not uploaded in the prescribed manner, as they did not appear under the 'view notices and orders' tab. This prevented them from seeking appropriate remedies 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 and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's Arguments: The respondent, through learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).