M/S Nikunj Udyog vs. Deputy Commissioner, Ghaziabad Sector - 4 And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nikunj Udyog, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 11.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-4, Ghaziabad, under Section 73(9) of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. The petitioner contended that the notices issued under Section 73 of the Act were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the notice and the order, and could not appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. The Department did not dispute these contentions, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, and not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, which led to the petitioner's unawareness of the proceedings. The Court found that no material existed to reject the petitioner's contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab. Relying on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra) and M/s Mohini Traders (Supra), the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 18.12.2023. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice in accordance with law, and further proceedings were to take place based on this fresh notice. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, and therefore, there was no outstanding demand.

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 response and challenge, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that uploading notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant they were unaware of the proceedings. This lack of proper communication prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the impugned 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 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 petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They also conceded that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).