M/S. Dcplay Distribution Private Limited vs. Deputy Commissioner (State Tax) And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s DCPLAY DISTRIBUTION PVT. LTD., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Noida, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders 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 and unable to respond within the limitation period. The Department, represented by the Standing Counsel, did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the impugned order was not reflected under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, but rather under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. This lack of proper communication meant the petitioner was unaware of the proceedings and could not avail their remedies within the limitation period. The Court referred to its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and found that the facts were similar. The Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 08.12.2023. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, and further proceedings would take place based on this fresh notice. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, so 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 assessee, thereby impacting the limitation period for challenging the order? The petitioner argued that the non-visibility of the notice and order on the primary 'Due Notices and Orders' tab prevented them from seeking appropriate remedies within the prescribed limitation period. They relied on previous High Court judgments, including Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. and M/s Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. The respondent (Revenue) contended, based on written instructions, that the assessing officer has no control over which tab the order appears on and that the issue might need to be addressed by the GST Network. They did not dispute that the order was not reflected in the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab.