Hardwari Lal Madan Gopal vs. State Of U.P And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Hardwari Lal Madan Gopal, is challenging two orders dated 19.09.2023 and 30.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which created a tax demand. The petitioner contends that the notices and orders were uploaded on the GST portal under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the proceedings and unable to appear before the authority or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the impugned orders were not reflected under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, but rather under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. This lack of proper communication prevented the petitioner from availing appropriate remedies within the limitation period. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was already deposited. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 19.09.2023 and 30.12.2023. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the prescribed method of uploading notices and orders on the GST portal, leading to a lack of awareness for the assessee, warrants relief. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the prescribed manner, providing at least 15 days' clear notice, and to proceed further based on that 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 due communication to the petitioner under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that this manner of uploading prevented them from being aware of the notices and orders, 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 and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another. The respondent, State of U.P., through its counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded. However, they initially contended that the assessing officer has no control over which tab the order reflects under and that the GST Network is responsible for the portal's design. Despite this, the respondent did not dispute that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies judgment.