M/S Ashoka Mobile Having Its Office At Naya Sahar Etawah vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ashoka Mobile, filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 25.12.2023 and 12.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Etawah, under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017, which created a demand against them. 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. Consequently, they were unaware of these proceedings and could not respond or challenge the orders within the limitation period. The respondent-State did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, preventing them from being aware of the proceedings and responding within the limitation period. This finding was based on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to statutory remedies, especially since the disputed amount was already deposited. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 25.12.2023 and 12.09.2023 were quashed. 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, for further proceedings.

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 their ability to respond within the limitation period, as contemplated under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were not properly communicated as they were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, making them unaware of the proceedings. 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 Arguments: The respondent-State, through the Standing Counsel, did not dispute the factual contention regarding the tab where the notices and orders were uploaded. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).