M/S Rais Handicraft vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rais Handicraft, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Moradabad, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. This order created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2017-18. 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, rendering them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The revenue department did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the proper communication of the notice and order. Following the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court found that the uploading of the impugned order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant that the petitioner could not be deemed to have been properly notified. The Court reasoned that this procedural lapse prevented the petitioner from availing their statutory remedies within the prescribed time. Consequently, the impugned order dated 14.12.2023 was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, providing at least 15 clear days' notice, and to conduct further proceedings in accordance with the law based on this fresh notice. No issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of the notice and order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes proper communication to the petitioner under the relevant provisions of the GST Act, thereby impacting the limitation period for response? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in tax administration). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that the notices and order were not properly communicated as they were uploaded on an obscure tab, preventing them from appearing before the authority or questioning the order within the stipulated time. They relied on the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Revenue's argument: The revenue department, based on the material on record, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. judgment.