M/S M.L. Trading Co. vs. Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector -5, Ghaziabad And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s M.L. Trading Co., is challenging an order dated 20.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-5, Ghaziabad, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that 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 claims to have been unaware of the notices and the subsequent order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The revenue, represented by the State, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the proper communication of notices and orders. The Court found that the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 was uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, and not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and challenging the order within the limitation period. Relying on its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and thereafter proceed with the matter. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, and there was no outstanding demand.

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 the impugned order dated 20.04.2024 valid and binding? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that due to the notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, they were unaware of the proceedings and could not avail their 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 (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024) and M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another (Writ Tax No.551 of 2023). Revenue's Argument: The revenue, based on available material, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the tab on which notices and orders were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).