M/S. Shobha Bharat Gas vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s. Shobha Bharat Gas, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 18.12.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Deoria, under Section 73(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the tax period July 2017 to March 2018. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was not uploaded on the assessee portal under the 'view notices and orders' tab. They only became aware of the order on 21.05.2025 when an advocate personally inquired at the respondent's office. This prevented the petitioner from seeking an appropriate remedy within the limitation period. The respondent-State argued that the assessing officer has no control over how orders appear on the portal, attributing potential issues to the GST Network.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt, as there was no material to reject their contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'view notices and orders' tab. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter-affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the entire disputed amount was already deposited with the State Government, meaning there was no outstanding demand. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. The assessing officer was then directed to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order within one month of the service of the fresh notice. The petitioner undertook to appear on the date fixed.
Key Issues
1. Whether the impugned order dated 18.12.2023, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Deoria, under Section 73(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be quashed on the ground that it was not uploaded on the assessee portal in the prescribed manner, thereby preventing the petitioner from availing statutory remedies within the limitation period? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the non-visibility of the order on the 'view notices and orders' tab of the assessee portal rendered it ineffective and prevented them from filing a timely appeal or seeking other remedies. They relied on the case of M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's Contention: The State contended that the assessing officer is not responsible for any portal display errors, as the web portal's functionality is managed by the GST Network. They asserted that there is no option for the assessing officer to specifically upload an order under a particular tab visible to the assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 73(9)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109784-DB Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2877 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S. Shobha Bharat Gas Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J.
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents.
Present petition has been filed for the following relief:- "I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of No. certiorari quashing the order dated 18.12.2023, passed by Respondent 2/the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Deoria, under Section 73(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, pertaining to the tax period from July 2017 to March 2018. II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2/ Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Deoria, to afford an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner for the aforesaid tax period in accordance with law."
The petitioner claims that the impugned order dated 18.12.2023 passed by Respondent 2/the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Deoria was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the asseseess portal under the tab "view notices and orders". Rather, on 21.05.2025, when Shri Shamsheer Rahman, Advocate for the petitioner personally visited the office of respondent no. 2 and inquired about the status of registration of his email address, he was informed that an order had already been passed against the petitioner on 18.12.2023. 4. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner could not seek appropriate remedy against that order, within limitation. Reliance is placed on an earlier order of the Court in Writ Tax No.551 of 2023 (M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 03.05.2023 [Neutral
Citation No.2023:AHC:115008-DB].
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the assessing officer is not to blame for any error being cited by the assessee. Referring to the web portal available to the assessing officer, it had been indicated that there is no option/ choice available to the assessing officer to upload the order in the manner that it may reflect under any one of the particular tabs visible to the assessee. On query made, learned counsel for the respondents fairly states that if it all issue may have to be addressed by the GST Network a separate entity constituted to design maintain and run the web portal.
At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab "view notices and orders". We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore, there is no outstanding demand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner. . Order Date :- 10.7.2025 K.K. Maurya (Praveen Kumar Giri, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) KAMLESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
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.