Nec Electronics Corporation vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Nec Electronics Corporation, is challenging an order dated April 19, 2024, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, NOIDA Sector - 5, Gautam Budh Nagar, under Section 73 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 revenue, represented by the State of U.P. and others, did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated April 19, 2024. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab was not disputed by the revenue. This factual position, coupled with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, led the Court to conclude that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court reasoned that the lack of proper communication prevented the petitioner from availing their remedies within the limitation period. The ratio decidendi is that if statutory notices and orders are not uploaded on the designated and accessible portal tab for the assessee, it amounts to a failure of due communication, entitling the assessee to relief. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and to proceed further based on that notice. No issue was expressly left undecided.

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 making the impugned order dated April 19, 2024, valid and binding? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, as opposed to the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, resulted in the petitioner's lack of awareness of the proceedings. This prevented them from appearing before the authority and challenging the order 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 (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024) and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Writ Tax No.551 of 2023). Revenue's Arguments: The revenue, based on the material on record, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. The Standing Counsel, upon written instructions, stated that the assessing officer has no choice in selecting the tab for uploading and that any issue with the portal functionality would need to be addressed by the GST Network.