M/S Rajendra Gears vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rajendra Gears, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated April 30, 2024, and June 12, 2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction, Ghaziabad, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the financial year 2018-2019. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders 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 Department did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated April 30, 2024, and June 12, 2023. The Court relied on its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which held that if notices and orders are not uploaded on the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The reasoning was that the petitioner could not be expected to be aware of proceedings and respond within the limitation period if the communication was not made through the designated channel. 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 ratio decidendi is that improper uploading of statutory notices and orders on the GST portal, leading to a lack of awareness and inability to respond within the prescribed time, warrants relief for the assessee. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice of at least 15 days to the petitioner in the prescribed manner, and further proceedings would take place based on this notice.

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 due communication to the petitioner, thereby impacting their ability to respond within the limitation period, as per Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: 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 Contention: The Department, based on material on record, 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).