M/S Mrk Traders vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Mrk Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an ex-parte demand order and show cause notice dated February 22, 2023, and December 9, 2022, respectively. These were issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction Baghpat, Sector (B), Meerut, U.P., under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, making them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the uploading of the show cause notice and demand order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant that the petitioner was not duly communicated. This prevented them from responding within the limitation period. The Court relied on its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which dealt with a similar issue of improper uploading of notices. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The impugned demand order and show cause notice were 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 the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings could take place.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of the show cause notice and demand order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes due communication to the petitioner, thereby impacting their ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which they were unaware of. Consequently, they could not appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. They relied on the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Respondent's Argument: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. judgment.