M/S Chauhan Associates vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chauhan Associates, challenged orders dated 04.03.2024 and 15.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Gautam Buddha Nagar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, creating a demand for the Financial Year 2018-19. 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 did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 04.03.2024 and 15.12.2023. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, was not disputed by the Department. This procedural irregularity prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing their remedies within the limitation period. The Court relied on its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, which also dealt with similar issues of improper communication via the GST portal. The Court reasoned that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially as the disputed amount was already deposited. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least fifteen clear days’ notice in the prescribed manner, and further proceedings would take place based on this fresh notice.

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 affecting their ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were not properly communicated as they were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which they were unaware of. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or 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. Respondent's Argument: The Department, based on the material on record, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.