M/S Dhampure Speciality Sugars Limited vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Dhampure Speciality Sugars Limited, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector-1, Dhampur, under Section 74 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. The petitioner contended that the notices and the impugned 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 appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. The respondent, State of U.P. and Another, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.03.2023. 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 if the notices and orders are not uploaded in the manner required, the petitioner cannot be expected to be aware of them and avail appropriate remedies 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 manner prescribed by law, and to conduct further proceedings based on this fresh notice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes due communication of the proceedings under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, specifically concerning Section 74? The petitioner argued that the uploading of the notice and order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant they were not properly communicated. 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. The respondent, represented by the learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where the notices and orders were uploaded. They also acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.