M/S Mahesh Prasad Santosh Kumar vs. State Of U.P. And Another
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, M/s Mahesh Prasad Santosh Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Ballia, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. The petitioner contended that notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, making them unaware of the proceedings and preventing them from appearing or questioning the validity of the orders within the limitation period. The revenue, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not dispute these contentions regarding the upload location and acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment.
Held
The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. It found that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, supporting the petitioner's contention that they were unaware of the proceedings. The Court noted that no material existed to reject this claim. Referencing the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was lying in deposit. Consequently, the impugned order dated 12.12.2023 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, and further proceedings would take place based on this fresh notice. The petitioner undertook to appear on the fixed date, and a reasoned order was to be passed within one month of notice service.
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, thereby impacting their ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period, as per Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that uploading notices and orders under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, as evidenced by Annexure-6, meant they were unaware of the proceedings and thus could not appear or challenge the impugned orders 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. Revenue's contention: The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the upload tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The Standing Counsel, based on instructions, stated that the assessing officer has no choice of tab for uploading and that any issue might 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:33231-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 780 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/s Mahesh Prasad Santosh Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. and another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rishi Raj Kapoor Counsel for Respondent :- Ankur Agarwal, S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
This petition is directed against order dated 12.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Ballia under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 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-6 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 have 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 12.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-2, Ballia (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 :- 7.3.2025 AKShukla/AHA (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA 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.