M/S Nitin Traders vs. State Of U.P, And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Nitin Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Prayagraj, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner contended that notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the notices and the impugned order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The revenue did not dispute these contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders and acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The Court reasoned that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the notices and orders were not uploaded on the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, preventing the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and challenging the order within the limitation period. This decision was based on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 clear days' notice in the prescribed manner, after which further proceedings could take place. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially as the disputed amount was already deposited.

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 under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, thereby entitling the assessee to challenge the order within the prescribed limitation period? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to the notices and orders being uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, they were unaware of the proceedings and the impugned order, thus being deprived of the opportunity to respond or seek remedy within the limitation period. 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 revenue, based on instructions, did not dispute the factual assertion regarding the tab where notices and orders were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra). The Standing Counsel indicated that the GST Network, a separate entity, would be responsible for addressing such portal-related issues.