M/S Sri Ram Rassi Bhandar vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sri Ram Rassi Bhandar, is challenging an order dated December 18, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector - 3, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the notices and the impugned order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the proceedings and unable to 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 order dated December 18, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the improper uploading of the notice and order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented them from being aware of the proceedings and availing remedies within the limitation period, was not disputed by the respondent. This was in line with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Court reasoned that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was already deposited. The ratio decidendi is that if statutory notices and orders are not communicated through the designated and accessible portal tabs, it vitiates the proceedings and denies the assessee a fair opportunity to be heard and seek redressal within the prescribed time. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice of at least 15 clear days to the petitioner in the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings would take place.

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 affecting their right to respond and seek remedy within the prescribed limitation period, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the uploading of the impugned order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, and not on the 'view notices and orders' tab on the assessee's portal, meant that the order was not properly communicated. 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 Standing Counsel for the Department, based on written instructions, did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of the notice and order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They also acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Department indicated that the GST Network, a separate entity, would be responsible for addressing issues related to the web portal's functionality.