M/S Bhura Traders vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Bhura Traders, is challenging an order dated 24.07.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the period April 2019 to March 2020. The proceedings began with a notice under Section 61 of the Act on 23.02.2024, intimating discrepancies. The petitioner allegedly did not respond to this notice. Subsequently, a notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued on 14.05.2024, fixing 14.06.2024 for reply and personal hearing. Again, no response was filed by the petitioner. This led to the impugned order dated 23.07.2024, raising a demand of Rs. 14,69,464/-. The petitioner's primary contention is that the notices and the order were not properly uploaded on the GST portal, appearing under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab instead of the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, thus preventing them from noticing the same.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner's primary plea, based on the uploading of notices and orders under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, was not tenable. The Court noted that remedial measures were taken by the respondents following previous judgments, and since 16.01.2024, a new functionality was implemented. Under this new system, 'Additional Notices and Orders' are clubbed with 'Notices and Orders', and all notices and orders are displayed on a common screen, irrespective of the tab clicked. The Court found it was not the petitioner's case that they had not accessed the 'Notices and Orders' tab. Therefore, the plea based on the specific tab was deemed baseless and factually incorrect. The Court also dismissed the plea regarding the violation of Section 75(4) of the Act. It was observed that after the Section 73 notice was issued and the petitioner failed to file a reply or appear for a hearing, a reminder notice was sent fixing a hearing date. This aspect was noted in the impugned order and was not questioned by the petitioner. The Court concluded that the provisions of Section 75(4) were not violated. The Court found the petition to be without substance, viewing the attempt to question the orders based on unsustainable grounds as an effort to gain a second lease of life after losing limitation under Section 107 of the Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab on the GST portal, prior to the changes implemented on 16.01.2024, vitiates the proceedings and renders the impugned order invalid, as per the principles laid down in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another and Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Another? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of GST portal functionality and principles of natural justice). 2. Whether the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically Section 75(4) of the Act, by not providing adequate opportunity to the petitioner? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of Section 75(4) and the procedural steps taken). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and the order were not visible on the assessee portal under the correct tab, leading to their non-response. They relied on the judgments in M/s Mohini Traders and Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which set aside orders uploaded under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab. They also contended that the order was passed in violation of Section 75(4) of the Act, as a proper opportunity was not granted. Respondent's arguments: The State argued that the petitioner's reliance on the cited judgments was misplaced because the notices and orders were issued after 16.01.2024, when GSTN introduced changes. These changes clubbed 'Additional Notices and Orders' with 'Notices and Orders', displaying all on a common screen. Taxpayers are also intimated via registered email and mobile. Regarding natural justice, the State contended that despite a show cause notice and a reminder with a personal hearing date, the petitioner failed to respond, making the plea baseless. They also suggested the petitioner was using the portal issue as a pretext to avoid responding to repeated notices.
Sections Cited
Section 73, Section 61, Section 75(4), Section 107
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67010-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 1769 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Bhura Traders Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Kashyap,Ravindra Kumar Rastogi Counsel for Respondent :- S.C. Ankur Agarwal Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
This petition is directed against order dated 24.07.2024 passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (for short, 'the Act') for the period April 2019 to March 2020 (Annexure-4).
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Act. A notice under Section 61 of the Act intimating discrepancies in return after scrutiny dated 23.02.2024 in Form GST ASMT-10 was issued to the petitioner inter alia indicating several discrepancies.
Apparently, no response to the said notice was given resulting in issuance of notice under Section 73 of the Act dated 14.05.2024 fixing 14.06.2024 as the date of filing reply as well as personal hearing.
To the said notice also, no response was given, resulting in passing of order dated 23.07.2024 under Section 73 of the Act inter alia raising a demand to the tune of Rs. 14,69,464/-.
Submissions have been made that as the notices under Section 61 & 73 of the Act as well as the order passed under Section 73
were not uploaded on the portal in the manner required inasmuch as the same did not show up on the assessee portal under the tab of 'View Notices and Orders' rather they were reflected under the tab 'Additional Notice and Orders', the petitioner did not notice the same.
Based on the said submission, a plea has been raised that this Court in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another: Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023 decided on 03.05.2023 and in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Another: Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.07.2024, has laid down that uploading of the notices and orders under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab was not justified and had set aside the orders passed.
Further submissions have been made that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside as opportunity as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Act, has not been provided to the petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the plea raised based on the judgements in M/s Mohini Traders (supra) and Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as the notice under Section 61 of the Act and subsequent notice and orders were all issued after 16.01.2024. 9. Submissions have been made that GSTN has introduced certain changes regarding 'View/Download Notices and Demand Orders' tab on the GST Portal. As per the functionality provided w.e.f. 16.01.2024, 'Additional Notices and Orders' has been clubbed with 'Notices and Orders'. Resultantly, irrespective of the fact whether the user clicks on any of the tabs, the complete set of Notices and Orders are displayed on a common screen, followed by a note explaining under which category a particular notice or order can be viewed and that the tax payers are also intimated about the issuance of the Orders in question on the registered e-mail ID and mobile number and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard is totally baseless.
In relation to the plea raised pertaining to the violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act also it was submitted that the said plea is equally baseless inasmuch as when despite show cause notice dated 14.05.2024, the petitioner did not respond to the same, a reminder notice was sent to the petitioner fixing a date for personal hearing, however, despite that when the petitioner did not appear, the order impugned was passed, which does not call for any interference.,
Submissions have been made that a spacious plea pertaining to uploading of the notice in a particular tab has been taken only with a view to get over the aspect of not responding to the repeated notices and not questioning the same once the order under Section 73 of the Act was passed and, therefore, petition deserves dismissal. Learned counsel has produced, for perusal of the Court, status of the portal, post 16.01.2024. 12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The entire plea in the petition is based on the fact that the notices and order impugned were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab with the aid of judgements of this Court in M/s Mohini Traders (supra) and Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).
Apparently, on account of judgements of this Court pertaining to uploading of the notices on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab being not appropriate, the respondents have taken remedial measures and since 16.01.2024, a new functionality has been provided wherein the 'Additional Notices and Orders' has been clubbed with 'Notices and Orders' and irrespective of the fact that whether a user clicks on any of the tabs, a complete set of notices and orders are displayed on a common screen followed by a note explaining under which category a particular notice or order can be viewed.
It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not accessed the 'Notices and Orders' tab. Once, the functionality, since 16.01.2024 has changed, the plea sought to be raised based on uploading of the notices and orders in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab is not available. In fact the same is baseless and factually incorrect.
In view thereof the plea sought to be raised cannot be countenanced.
The another plea raised regarding the violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act has no basis inasmuch as after the notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner chose not to file reply/appear for personal hearing, another reminder was issued fixing a date of hearing, which aspect has been clearly noticed in the order impugned and the same has not been questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition and, therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act have, in any manner, been violated.
The attempt made to question the validity of the orders after having lost limitation under Section 107 of the Act, based on unsustainable grounds and somehow seek a second lease of life in the circumstances, cannot be countenanced.
The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Sandeep (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR 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.