M/S Lavi Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Lavi Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, UPGST, Aligarh under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. 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. Consequently, the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the notices and the order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The revenue did not dispute these contentions, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others.
Held
The Court held that the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, as opposed to the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, did not constitute proper communication to the petitioner. This finding was based on the reasoning that the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and thus unable to exercise their right to appear or challenge the order within the limitation period. The Court found merit in the petitioner's contention, which was supported by the Department's lack of dispute and reliance on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The ratio decidendi is that for statutory notices and orders to be considered duly communicated, they must be uploaded on the designated and readily accessible tab for the assessee, ensuring awareness and opportunity to respond. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, UPGST, Aligarh was quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice in the prescribed manner, allowing for further proceedings thereafter.
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 under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby affecting the assessee's ability to respond and seek remedies within the prescribed limitation period? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that uploading on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not amount to proper communication, leading to their unawareness of the proceedings and inability to respond or challenge the impugned order within the 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 contention: The learned Standing Counsel for the Department did not dispute the factual assertion regarding the tab where 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:91876-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2619 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Lavi Enterprises Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Divya Prakash Tripathi,Ravi Pratap Singh,Tanmay Sadh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This petition is directed against order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, UPGST, Aligarh Section-8, Aligarh under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') whereby demand has been created against the petitioner.
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, which is evident from Annexure-4 to the petition and consequently, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notices as well as passing of the orders, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned orders 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 had 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 asseseess 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 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 order impugned dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, UPGST, Aligarh Section-8, Aligarh (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is 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 :- 28.5.2025 Pkb/nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI 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.