M/S Shree Shyamji Communication vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shree Shyamji Communication, is challenging an order dated April 19, 2024, passed by the Commercial/State Tax Officer, State Tax, Agra, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contends 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. Consequently, the petitioner claims to have been unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders.

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. 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. v. State of U.P. & 2 others*, the Court observed that the issue of proper communication was central. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit, thus there was no outstanding demand. The Court quashed the impugned order dated April 19, 2024, and directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice in the prescribed manner, allowing further proceedings thereafter. The Court explicitly stated that no useful purpose would be served by 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, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, constitutes proper communication to the assessee under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that this manner of uploading prevented them from being aware of the proceedings and thus unable to respond within the prescribed 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*. The respondent, State of U.P., did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab used for uploading. They also did not dispute that the issue was covered by the judgment in *Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.*.