M/S Anil Kumar Pandey vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Anil Kumar Pandey, challenges an order dated December 12, 2023, passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Tax, Prayagraj, under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, creating a demand for the Financial Year 2018-19. The petitioner contends that 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 revenue department did not dispute these contentions regarding the upload location of the 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. The Court found no material to reject the petitioner's contention that the order was not properly communicated. Citing the judgment in *Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.*, the Court observed that the issue of proper communication of the order was central. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit, meaning there was no outstanding demand. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated December 12, 2023. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days clear notice, in accordance with law, and thereafter, further proceedings were to take place. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies.

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, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that uploading notices on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, meant they were unaware of the proceedings. This lack of proper communication prevented them from responding within the stipulated time, relying on the precedent set in *Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others* and *M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another*. Revenue's Argument: The revenue department, based on available material, 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.*. The Standing Counsel indicated that the assessing officer has no control over which tab the GST Network uploads the order to.