M/S Rishabh Pharma vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rishabh Pharma, is challenging an order dated 15.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Varanasi, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the proceedings and unable to appear before the authority or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the incorrect tab.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the improper uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. This finding is based on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, where a similar issue led to a remand. 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 lying in deposit. The impugned order dated 15.04.2024 was quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least fifteen days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and thereafter proceed with the matter. The ratio decidendi is that proper communication of notices and orders is essential for due process under GST law, and non-compliance with prescribed portal upload procedures can vitiate proceedings.

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 under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby entitling the petitioner to a benefit of doubt? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were not uploaded in the prescribed manner, as they did not appear under the 'view notices and orders' tab. This prevented them from seeking appropriate remedies 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. Respondent's Contention: The learned Standing Counsel, based on written instructions, did not dispute the fact that notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. The department acknowledged that the assessing officer has no control over which tab the order reflects for the assessee and that this issue might need to be addressed by the GST Network.