M/S Ma Sharda Enterprises vs. State Of Uttar Pradeh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ma Sharda Enterprises, challenged two orders dated December 31, 2023, and August 12, 2022, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Kaushambi, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, creating a demand for the financial year 2017-2018. 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 upload location and acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment.

Held

The Court held that 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, meant that the petitioner was not properly communicated with. This prevented them from availing their remedies within the limitation period. The Court found the petitioner entitled to the benefit of doubt, aligning with its previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The reasoning was that the manner of uploading did not ensure actual notice to the assessee. Consequently, the impugned orders dated December 31, 2023, and August 12, 2022, were 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 accordance with the law, and thereafter proceed with the matter. The Court noted that the disputed amount was already lying in deposit with the State Government, implying 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 petitioner, thereby affecting their ability to respond within the limitation period, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service 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 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. Respondent's Argument: The Department, based on the material on record, did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the upload location of the notices and orders. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).