Golf City Facility Management Services vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Golf City Facility Management Services, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 3, 2024, passed by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner contended that they were not granted an opportunity of hearing. They further argued that neither an email regarding the show cause notice was received, nor was the notice uploaded on the proper GST portal. Instead, it was found under the "additional notices and orders" tab. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment by a Division Bench of the same High Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, which held that notices not appearing on the main GST portal but under the "additional notices and orders" tab do not constitute valid notice.

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated March 3, 2024, passed by the Assessing Authority, is quashed and set aside. The Court agreed with the petitioner's submission and the precedent laid down in Ola Fleet Technologies Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others. The reasoning was that a notice not uploaded on the main GST portal, but found under the "additional notices and orders" tab, does not constitute proper notice to the assessee. Consequently, an order passed without proper notice and without affording an opportunity of hearing is unsustainable. The ratio decidendi is that compliance with procedural fairness, including proper service of notice on the designated portal, is essential for the validity of tax proceedings. The Court directed the concerned authority to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order and to continue the proceedings in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether an order passed by the Assessing Authority without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is sustainable in law, particularly when the show cause notice was not uploaded on the main GST portal but under the "additional notices and orders" tab? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the order dated March 3, 2024, is vitiated as no opportunity of hearing was provided. They asserted that the show cause notice was not properly served, as it was not uploaded on the primary GST portal and was instead placed under the "additional notices and orders" tab. They relied on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, which established that such notices are not considered valid. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (State of U.P. and 2 Others).