M/S Sharda Pharma vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Sharda Pharma, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 02.04.2024 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Deoria, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. The petitioner contended that the notices issued under Section 73 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 notices and the order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the doubt regarding the proper communication of the notices and the impugned order. The Court found that the material on record did not reject the petitioner's contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab. Citing the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court observed that the issue of due communication was paramount. The Court noted that the disputed amount was already lying in deposit, meaning there was no outstanding demand. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 02.04.2024. 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, further proceedings were to take place.

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 petitioner, thereby making them aware of the proceedings and the impugned order? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act, 2017). The petitioner argued that this improper uploading prevented them from receiving actual notice, thus hindering their ability to respond or seek remedies within the prescribed time. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The respondent, through the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where notices were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.