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 February 6, 2024, and December 19, 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 2018-19 under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 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, rendering them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The department did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders dated February 6, 2024, and December 19, 2023. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the notices and orders were not uploaded on the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing their remedies within the limitation period. This finding was based on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. 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 prescribed manner, after which further proceedings would take place. 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, thereby impacting the limitation period for challenging the order? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to the notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, they were unaware of the proceedings and thus could not appear before the authority or challenge the order within the prescribed limitation period. They relied on the judgment 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. Respondent's Argument: The learned counsel for the Department 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. (Supra). The Department also indicated that the GST Network, a separate entity, would be responsible for addressing issues related to the web portal's functionality.