M/S Jankey Engineering Works vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Jankey Engineering Works, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 07, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Ghaziabad, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that the notice and order 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 Department did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated December 07, 2023. The Court relied on its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which dealt with a similar issue of notices being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. The reasoning was that such uploading did not constitute proper communication, leading to the petitioner's unawareness and inability to respond within the limitation period. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The operative direction was for the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, providing at least 15 days' clear notice in the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings would take place. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of the notice and order 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 under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's argument: The petitioner argued that uploading the notice and order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab did not amount to proper communication, as they were unaware of its existence. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the prescribed limitation period. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Respondent's argument: The Department, based on the material on record, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the tab on which the notices and orders were uploaded and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).