M/S Bhoomi Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Bhoomi Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated December 20, 2023, and April 23, 2024, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Bareilly, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended 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, making them unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, they could not appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. The respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated December 20, 2023, and April 23, 2024. The Court followed its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which dealt with a similar issue of notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as there was no material to reject their contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the correct tab. The reasoning was that improper uploading prevented the petitioner from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period. The Court noted that the disputed amount was already lying in deposit, so there was no outstanding demand. The operative direction was for the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the prescribed manner, with at least 15 days' clear notice, and thereafter proceed with 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 Argument: The petitioner argued that uploading notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the designated 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant they were unaware of the proceedings. This lack of proper communication prevented them from availing appropriate remedies within the statutory 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 Argument: The respondent, through learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where the notices and orders were uploaded. They stated that the assessing officer has no control over which tab the GST Network uploads the order to. The GST Network is responsible for the portal's design and maintenance.