M/S Shiva Poultry Equipments vs. Commercial Tax Officer

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shiva Poultry Equipments, is challenging orders dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sector-9, Gorakhpur, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner contends that a notice dated 29.09.2023, also issued under Section 73, was 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 notice and the subsequent order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The respondent's counsel did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt. It found that the impugned order and notice were not uploaded on the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, but rather on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. This lack of proper communication prevented the petitioner from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period. Citing the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court concluded that the petitioner's contention regarding the improper uploading of the order was valid. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 30.12.2023 and the notice dated 29.09.2023. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in the manner prescribed by law, and thereafter proceed with the matter. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for uploading notices and orders on the GST portal, leading to a lack of awareness by the assessee, vitiates the subsequent proceedings and demands.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a 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 assessee, thereby enabling them to respond within the prescribed limitation period? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief when the impugned order was not uploaded in the manner required by the GST portal, preventing them from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period? The petitioner argued that the notice and order were not properly communicated as they appeared on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which they were unaware of. This prevented them from filing a timely response or appeal, relying on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The respondent's counsel did not dispute the facts regarding the uploading of the notice and order on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.