M/S Radha Industries Thru. Partner Shri Atul Agarwal vs. Deputy Commissioner Sector-22 Lucknow
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Radha Industries, through its partner Shri Atul Agarwal, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed under Section 74(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The primary contention was regarding the validity of service of notice. The petitioner argued that while the notice was uploaded on the common portal, a mode prescribed under Section 169(1)(d), they could not access it because their employee, who had the password, had left their employment. Consequently, they only became aware of the notice when their account was attached in another case. The petitioner sought to rely on Section 169(1)(f), which deals with affixing a copy at a conspicuous place if other modes are not practicable.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's argument regarding the service of notice was not tenable. It clarified that the words 'if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable' in Section 169(1)(f) refer to situations where the modes of service mentioned in the preceding clauses are not practicable on the part of the department issuing the notice. It does not cater to a scenario where the assessee faces internal difficulties in accessing the portal. Since the notice was uploaded on the common portal, which is a recognized mode of service under Section 169(1)(d), clause (f) had no application. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's reliance on the Madras High Court judgments, stating they did not apply to the facts of the case. The writ petition was dismissed, but without prejudice to the petitioner's right to file an appeal against the impugned order, if permissible by law.
Key Issues
1. Whether the service of notice uploaded on the common portal, in accordance with Section 169(1)(d) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is valid when the petitioner claims to have been unable to access it due to an employee leaving their job. 2. Whether Section 169(1)(f) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, can be invoked by the petitioner in the given circumstances, where the inability to access the portal is due to internal employee issues rather than the impracticability of the modes of service by the department. Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the words 'if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable' in Section 169(1)(f) should apply, as they were unable to access the portal. They relied on this clause to argue for a valid reason for not receiving the notice through the prescribed digital mode. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not explicitly record arguments from the respondent revenue authority. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the revenue's position was that the notice was validly served as per Section 169(1)(d).
Sections Cited
Section 74(9), Section 169(1)(d), Section 169(1)(f)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42611-DB Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 623 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Radha Industries Thru. Partner Shri Atul Agarwal Respondent :- Deputy Commissioner Sector-22 Lucknow Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Jauhari,Ambuj Kumar Bajpai,Sonika Dixit Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated that issues involved in this petition has been dealt with vide judgment dated 11.07.2025 passed in Writ Tax No.602 of 2025 [M/s Radha Industries vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Sector-22 State Gst Room No 312, 3rd Floor Vaniya Kar Bhawan Lucknow ] which reads as under:- "Heard. The only ground raised by the petitioner's counsel for challenging the final order passed under Section 74(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 is that the service was not in terms of Section 169, however, in the same vein he says that the notice was uploaded on the common portal, which is a mode prescribed under Section 169 (1)(d), however, he relies upon clause (f), especially on the words, "if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable, by affixing it in some conspicuous place at his last known place of business or residence and if such mode is not practicable for any reason, then by affixing a copy thereof on the notice board of the office of the concerned officer or authority who or which passed such decision or order or issued such summons or notice". The submission is that though the notice was uploaded on the common portal which was permissible in view of Section 169, but the petitioner's employee who had the password, left the job and, therefore, the petitioner could not access the portal nor could he know about the notice. He came to know about it only when his account was attached in another case. Based on the aforesaid fact, he says that the words, 'if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable', occurring in clause (f) of Section 169(1) come to his rescue, as, in the aforesaid circumstances, he preposes a question presumably to himself that after all who will decide as to whether the petitioner could access the portal or not. We are not impressed by the argument at all. The words, 'if none of the modes aforesaid is practicable' occurring in clause (f) of Section 169(1) refer to the modes of service referred in the preceding clause not being practicable on the part of the department which is to issue the notice and it does not cater to a scenario with which the petitioner claims to have been faced. The petitioner's
counsel has misread and misunderstood the purport, meaning and application of clause (f) of Section 169(1). In this case it is not denied that the notice was uploaded on the common portal, which is a mode of service mentioned in clause (d) of Section 169(1), therefore, clause (f) has no play or application in the facts of this case. We have perused the judgments of the Madras High Court rendered by learned Single Judge Benches in the cases of Tvl. Sri Mathuru Eswarar Traders Represented by its Proprieto, Mr. R. Mahalingam, S/o Rmk, Ramaraj, No.3/61, Poolankinar, Thiruppur-642122 Vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer-I Udumalpet South Assessment Circle Thiruppur. No.3/61 Ragalpavi Poolankinar Thiruppul; Writ Petition No.16787 of 2025 and W.M.P. Nos. 19028 and 19029 of 2025 and Udumalpet Sarvodaya Sangham Vs. The Authority, Under Shop and Establishment Act/Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore-18 and Ors.; Manu/TN/0514/2025, which have been relied by the petitioner's counsel. We do not see as to how these judgments apply to the facts of this case. Even otherwise in view of our understanding of Section 169(1) clause (f) and its application, there is no case for interference. Writ Petition stands dismissed, however, without prejudice to rights of the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order, as far as it may be permissible in law. "
Therefore, in view of the above, this petition is also dismissed for the reasons already given hereinabove but without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to file an appeal against the impugned order, as far as it may be permissible in law. (Manish Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Shanu/- SHANU SUMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.