M/S Rahul Kumar vs. State Of Uttar Pradeh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Rahul Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated April 29, 2024, and December 24, 2023, passed by the Commissioner Tax Officer, State Tax, Sector-1, Bareilly, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. These orders created a demand against the petitioner 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. Consequently, they could neither appear before the authority nor challenge the orders within the limitation period. The petitioner relied on a previous judgment of the High Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated April 29, 2024, and December 24, 2023. The Court found that the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant that the petitioner was not properly informed of the proceedings. This aligns with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, where a similar issue led to a remand. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the improper communication. The ratio decidendi is that proper and transparent communication of notices and orders through designated portals is essential for due process under the GST Act, and failure to do so can vitiate the proceedings. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with the law, and to proceed further based on that 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 assessee, thereby impacting the limitation period for response and challenge? (Question of law and fact, concerning principles of natural justice and procedural fairness under the GST Act, 2017). Petitioner's arguments: 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 orders 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, which granted relief in a similar situation. Respondent's arguments: The counsel for the Department did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They also conceded that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).