M/S Prakash Medical Store vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Prakash Medical Store, filed a writ petition challenging orders dated December 7, 2023, and September 12, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax Jurisdiction, Pratapgarh Sector-1 Prayagraj. These orders created a demand against the petitioner for the Financial Year 2017-18. 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, making them unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, they could neither appear before the authority nor challenge the orders within the limitation period. The Department did not dispute these contentions and acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of this Court.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated December 7, 2023, and September 12, 2023. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the notices and orders were not reflected under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented them from being aware of the proceedings and availing remedies within the limitation period. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which dealt with a similar issue of improper uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit, and no outstanding demand existed. The operative direction was for the Assessing Officer 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 Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies.

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 the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief when they were unaware of the proceedings due to the manner of uploading of notices and orders, thereby preventing them from availing statutory remedies within the prescribed limitation period? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were not properly communicated as they were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which they were unaware of. 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, where similar issues led to a remand. They contended that due to this improper communication, they could not seek appropriate remedies within the limitation period. Respondent's Arguments: The Department, based on material on record, did not dispute the 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. The Department also indicated that the GST Network, a separate entity, would be responsible for addressing issues related to the web portal's functionality.