M/S Dauji Ispat Private Limited. vs. State Of U P And 2 Others

Held

The Court held that the impugned order DRC-07 dated July 20, 2021, as served upon the petitioner and visible on the GSTN portal, was wholly defective and lacked the vital aspect of reasons. The Court reasoned that without the complete order containing reasons being served on the assessee, the assessee cannot effectively challenge it before any forum, including the appellate forum. The existence of a complete copy with the Assessing Officer is irrelevant if it has not been communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the principle applied was that service of a reasoned order is a prerequisite for the assessee to exercise their right to appeal. The Court set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, supply all adverse material, grant two weeks for a reply, fix a hearing within a further two weeks, and pass a reasoned order, which must be uploaded on the GSTN portal and also served on the petitioner by registered post AD.

Facts

M/s Dauji Ispat Private Limited (Petitioner) challenged a summary order DRC-07 dated July 20, 2021, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax, Sector-1 Kasganj, Aligarh (Respondent). The Petitioner argued that the order uploaded on the GSTN portal lacked reasons, making it impossible to file a proper appeal. The Revenue Authority initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy. However, upon inspection, it was admitted that the copy of the order visible to the Petitioner on the GSTN portal was incomplete and did not contain the reasons for the decision, unlike a copy available with the Assessing Officer.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 20.7.2021, as uploaded on the GSTN portal and served upon the petitioner, is legally valid and appealable, considering it lacks reasons, thereby violating principles of natural justice and the right to challenge an adverse order? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The Petitioner argued that the order uploaded on the GSTN portal, which was the only version accessible to them, did not disclose any reasons. This deficiency renders the order defective and prevents them from availing their statutory remedy of appeal. They relied on the principle that an order without reasons cannot be challenged effectively. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue Authority initially raised a preliminary objection regarding the availability of an alternative remedy. However, they later conceded that the copy of the order visible to the petitioner on the GSTN portal was indeed incomplete and lacked reasons. They did not present arguments on the merits of the order itself, focusing on the procedural defect.