M/S Ark Infosolutions Private Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ark Infosolutions Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Noida, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, creating a demand against them. The petitioner contended 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 claimed to be unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute these contentions, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous judgment.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the notices and orders were not uploaded on the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, but rather on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. This lack of proper communication prevented the petitioner from effectively responding to the proceedings and availing their remedies within the limitation period. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was already deposited. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the prescribed method of communication on the GST portal, leading to an assessee's unawareness of proceedings, warrants relief. The impugned order dated 04.12.2023 was quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice of at least 15 clear days to the petitioner in the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings could take place.

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 petitioner, thereby enabling them to respond within the prescribed limitation period, as per Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which they were unaware of. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the impugned 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 Arguments: The respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and conceded that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).