Ramesh Chandra vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Ramesh Chandra, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated December 6, 2023, passed by the Assessing Authority. The petitioner contended that he was not granted an opportunity of hearing. Specifically, he argued that he did not receive any email regarding the show cause notice, nor was it 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 agreed with the petitioner's submission and the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others. The Court held that a notice uploaded solely under the "additional notices and orders" tab on the GST portal, without being on the main portal or communicated via email, does not constitute valid notice. Consequently, the petitioner was not afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated December 6, 2023. The Court directed the Assessing Authority to issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner within two weeks from the date of the order and to proceed with the matter in accordance with law. No specific amount in dispute was mentioned in the judgment.

Key Issues

1. Whether a show cause notice uploaded on the GST portal under the "additional notices and orders" tab, without being sent via email or appearing on the main GST portal, constitutes valid notice to the assessee, thereby affording an opportunity of hearing? (Question of law) Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that such a notice is not valid. They relied on the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Limited v. State of U.P. and 2 Others, which established that notices placed under the "additional notices and orders" tab are not considered proper notice. Therefore, the impugned order, passed without proper notice and opportunity of hearing, is illegal. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (State of U.P. and 2 Others).