M/S Showtime vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Showtime, filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated September 17, 2023, and an ex-parte order dated December 15, 2023, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Noida. These were issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, creating a demand against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, making them unaware of the proceedings. Consequently, they could not appear before the authority or challenge the order within the limitation period. The revenue 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 show cause notice and the ex-parte order. The Court found no material to 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 proper uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal was critical for due communication. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit, meaning there was no outstanding demand. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the show cause notice and the ex-parte demand order. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, providing at least 15 clear days' notice, and to conduct further proceedings thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of a show cause notice and an ex-parte order 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 entitling the revenue to proceed ex-parte? Petitioner's contention: 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 prevented them from responding or seeking 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. Respondent's contention: The revenue, through the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).