M/S Aum Telesolutions vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Aum Telesolutions, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated December 20, 2023, and April 10, 2024, passed by the Assistant 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 2018-19. 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, leading to the petitioner's unawareness and inability to appear or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The department did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the impugned orders were not reflected under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab. The Court found no material to reject the petitioner's contention that the order was not visible in the manner required. Citing the precedent in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated December 20, 2023, and April 10, 2024. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in the manner prescribed by law, and to proceed further based on that notice. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit, and therefore, there was no outstanding demand.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes due communication to the assessee, thereby impacting the limitation period for challenging the order? The petitioner argued that the non-visibility of the notices and orders under the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab prevented them from seeking appropriate remedies within the prescribed 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. The respondent-State, through the learned Standing Counsel, initially contended, based on written instructions, that the assessing officer has no choice in selecting the tab for uploading and that any issue would need to be addressed by the GST Network. However, the department did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab used for uploading.