M/S Pan Food vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pan Food, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 21.04.2024 and 15.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Tax Commissioner, Ghaziabad, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand for the Financial Year 2018-19. 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 appear before the authority or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The respondent, State of Uttar Pradesh, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 21.04.2024 and 15.12.2023. The Court found that the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant that the petitioner was not properly communicated with. This lack of proper communication meant the petitioner could not participate in the proceedings or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The Court relied on its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which held that such uploading practices entitled the petitioner to the benefit of doubt and a remand. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and to proceed further based on that notice. The ratio decidendi is that proper and clear communication of official notices and orders to the assessee through the designated portal tab is essential for valid proceedings and adherence to limitation periods.

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 affecting the limitation period for challenging the orders? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that uploading notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, as opposed to the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, rendered them unaware of the proceedings. This lack of proper communication prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the impugned orders within the statutory 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 respondent, through learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.