Braham Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Braham Kumar Yadav, is challenging an order dated 25.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends that the 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 respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt as the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, but rather under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. The Court noted that the respondent did not dispute this fact and that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra). The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was already lying in deposit. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.04.2024 was quashed and set aside. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice in the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings could take place. The ratio decidendi is that non-compliance with the prescribed procedure for uploading notices and orders on the GST portal, leading to the assessee's lack of awareness and inability to respond within the limitation period, warrants setting aside the consequential order and directing fresh proceedings.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes proper communication to the assessee under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, thereby entitling the petitioner to a benefit of doubt? The petitioner argued that the notices and the impugned order were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which they were unaware of. This prevented them from appearing before the authority and challenging the order within the limitation period. 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). The respondent, through the learned Standing Counsel, did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab and acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).