M/S Real Time Computer Services vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Real Time Computer Services, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner had initially received a notice under Section 61 for discrepancies in returns, to which they responded. Subsequently, a notice under Section 73 was issued, rejecting their explanation. The petitioner claims to have filed an offline reply on 01.08.2024, after missing the online filing deadline. However, the impugned order was passed without considering this reply. The respondent authorities denied receiving the hard copy of the reply. The court noted that the petitioner's reply bore the department's stamp, and the respondent's instructions were silent on whether the stamp was not from the office or could be misused.

Held

The Court held that the order dated 07.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, was liable to be set aside due to a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court observed that the petitioner had submitted a reply which bore the stamp of the department. While the stamp did not explicitly indicate the date of receipt, the instructions provided by the Standing Counsel were silent on whether the stamp was not from the office or if it could be misused. Given that the petitioner had filed a reply bearing the departmental stamp and had also responded to the earlier Section 61 notice, the Court found it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh decision, with a direction to consider the petitioner's reply and afford them an opportunity of hearing. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned, and no other issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 07.08.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is liable to be set aside for violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically for non-consideration of the petitioner's offline reply? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that they had filed an offline reply on 01.08.2024, which bore the department's stamp, but this reply was not considered before the impugned order was passed on 07.08.2024. This failure to consider their response, despite the reply being stamped by the department, constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice. They relied on the fact that their reply was physically submitted and bore the departmental stamp. Respondent's Contention: The respondent authorities, through their counsel, initially denied having received the hard copy of the petitioner's reply. However, their subsequent instructions were silent on the authenticity or origin of the departmental stamp on the petitioner's reply.