M/S A K Traders vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s A K Traders, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 18.12.2023 and 15.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Gautam Budh Nagar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2017-18. 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 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 18.12.2023 and 15.09.2023. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, as the notices and orders were not uploaded on the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, preventing the petitioner from being aware of and responding to the proceedings. This decision was based on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. 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 operative direction was for the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in the manner prescribed by law, for 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? The petitioner argued that the non-visibility of notices and orders under the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab prevented them from seeking 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. and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. The respondent, State of U.P., through its counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab on which the notices and orders were uploaded. They also acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The respondent's counsel indicated that the GST Network might be responsible for the portal's functionality.