M/S S.K. Enterprises vs. State Of U.P, And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s S.K. Enterprises, is challenging an order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Kanpur Sector-5, Kanpur (A) under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends 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 claims to have been unaware of the notices and orders, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the validity of the orders within the limitation period. The revenue's counsel did not dispute these contentions, acknowledging that the issue is covered by a previous judgment.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the doubt regarding the due communication of the impugned order. The Court found that there was no material to reject the petitioner's contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab. The Court noted that the issue of whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were displayed to and considered by the assessing officer also existed. Given these circumstances, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially as the disputed amount was already lying in deposit. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice of at least 15 days' clear notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law, and thereafter, further proceedings were to take place. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the prescribed method of uploading notices on the GST portal, leading to the assessee's lack of awareness and inability to respond within limitation, warrants setting aside the consequential order and remanding the matter for fresh 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 due communication to the petitioner under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, specifically in relation to Section 73. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that uploading notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, resulted in them being unaware of the proceedings. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the impugned orders 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 revenue's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). While initially stating that the assessing officer has no choice in selecting the tab, they conceded that the GST Network, a separate entity, would be responsible for addressing such portal issues.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:90277-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2408 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s S.K. Enterprises Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Vedika Nath, Yashonidhi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Nimai Dass (A.C.S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This petition is directed against order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Kanpur Sector-5, Kanpur (A) 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-5 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 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 order impugned dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Kanpur Sector-5, Kanpur (A), (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 :- 27.5.2025 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SAZIA AQUIL 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.