M/S Rama Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rama Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Mainpuri, Etawah, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that 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. Consequently, they could neither appear before the authority nor challenge the order within the limitation period. The Department did not dispute these contentions regarding the upload location and acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 21.12.2023. The Court followed its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The reasoning was that the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant the petitioner was not properly informed of the proceedings. This lack of proper communication prevented the petitioner from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the prescribed limitation period. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. As a consequence, the Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, providing at least 15 days' clear notice in the manner prescribed by law, and further proceedings would be based on this fresh notice.

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 Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, thereby impacting the limitation period for challenge? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that uploading notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, as evidenced by Annexure-6, meant they were unaware of the proceedings. They relied on the High Court's decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which granted relief by remanding the matter when notices were similarly uploaded. Respondent's Contention: The learned counsel for the Department did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the upload location and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. judgment.