M/S Jai Shree Ram Doot Trading Co. vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Jai Shree Ram Doot Trading Co., filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 15.09.2023 and a demand order dated 21.12.2023, both issued by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Jurisdiction Bareilly, Sector-1, Bareilly, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The demand pertains to the Financial Year 2017-18. The petitioner contended that the notices and order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, rendering them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The respondent State did not dispute these contentions.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the show cause notice and demand order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, and not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing remedies within the limitation period. This finding is based on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was stated to be lying in deposit. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned show cause notice and demand order. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and thereafter, further proceedings were to take place. The issue of whether the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit was noted as a factor in the decision.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of a show cause notice and demand order 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 under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby impacting the limitation period for response and remedy? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to the notices and order being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, they were unaware of the proceedings and could not appear before the authority or challenge 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 and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. Respondent's Argument: The respondent State, through learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab on which the notices and orders were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93832-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2703 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Jai Shree Ram Doot Trading Co. Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Pranjal Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
This petition is directed against show cause notice dated 15.09.2023 and demand order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Juri iction Bareilly, Sector-1, Bareilly under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 ('the Act') whereby demand has been created against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2017-18. 2. Submission has been made that notices issued under Section 73 of the Act, were uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab of the G.S.T. Portal, and consequently, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notices as well as passing of the order, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned order within the period of limitation.
Submission has been made that this Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.7.2024 taking note of the said aspect of the matter wherein notices have not been uploaded on the 'Due Notices and Orders' and instead uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders', came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the authority.
Learned counsel appearing for the Department based on the material available on record does not dispute the contentions raised pertaining to uploading of the notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab instead of 'Due Notices and Orders' Tab and the fact that the issue as raised is covered by judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (supra).
In the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (supra), a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court inter alia observed and came to the following conclusion:- "
Ultimately, vide last order dated 05.04.2024 the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue due communication of the impugned order dated 12.07.2023. The petitioner claims that the same was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the assesses portal under the tab "view notices and orders". Rather, it reflects under the other tab for "additional notice and orders".
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 upon written instructions received 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, Shri Ankur Agarwal 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". On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. 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."
In view of the submissions made and the judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (supra), the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The show cause notice dated
2023 and demand order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Juri iction Bareilly, Sector-1, Bareilly (Annexures-3 and 4 to the writ petition) are quashed and set aside.
The Assessing Officer may issue a fresh at least 15 days' clear notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed in accordance with law and based on the said notice, further proceedings may take place. Order Date :- 30.5.2025 AHA/Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI 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.