Shree Balaji International vs. Deputy Commissioner, Sector-7, State Tax, Muzaffarnagar And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Shree Balaji International, is challenging an order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sector-7, State Tax, Muzaffarnagar, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. 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 they were unaware of the proceedings and could not appear before the authority or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The Department, through its counsel, 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 notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. This procedural lapse prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing their remedies within the prescribed time. The Court found that the issue was covered by its previous judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. Consequently, the impugned order dated 27.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was 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 the manner prescribed by law, and thereafter, further proceedings would take place. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, meaning there was no outstanding demand.

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 due communication of the proceedings to the petitioner under the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, specifically concerning the procedural fairness required under Section 73? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders 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 impugned orders within the period of limitation. They relied on the High Court's decision 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. Respondent's Contention: The Department's counsel did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. The Standing Counsel, based on written instructions, indicated that the assessing officer has no option to upload orders in a manner that they reflect under specific tabs visible to the assessee, suggesting the issue might lie with the GST Network.