M/S Sharda Plywood vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Sharda Plywood, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated December 18, 2023, and an ex parte demand order dated March 13, 2024, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bareilly. These actions were taken under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, creating a demand for the Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, rendering them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The revenue did not dispute these contentions.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the impugned show cause notice and ex parte demand order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, and not on the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing their remedies within the limitation period. The Court found no material to reject the petitioner's contention. Relying on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned notice and order. 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. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, indicating no outstanding demand.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of the 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 due communication to the petitioner, thereby affecting their right to respond and seek remedy within the prescribed limitation period, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to the notices and orders 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 orders within the limitation period. They relied on the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Respondent's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Department's counsel also stated that the assessing officer has no option to choose specific tabs for uploading and that any issue with the portal's functionality would need to be addressed by the GST Network.
Sections Cited
Section 73
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80233-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 2269 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Sharda Plywood Respondent :- State of Uttar Pradesh and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Dheeraj Dwivedi, Gauransh Mishra, Parth Goswami, Pranjal Shukla, Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
This petition is directed against show cause notice dated 18.12.2023 and ex parte demand order dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction Bareilly Sector-3 Bareilly (A) Bareilly under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short 'the Act') whereby demand has been created against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2018-19. 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 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 show cause notice dated 18.12.2023 and ex parte demand order impugned dated 13.03.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax Juri iction Bareilly Sector-3 Bareilly (A) Bareilly (Annexure-4 and 3 respectively 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 :- 15.5.2025 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.