M/S Laxmi Enterprises vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Laxmi Enterprises, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Deoria Sector-2, Gorakhpur, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. 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, the petitioner claimed to be unaware of the notices and orders, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the validity of the impugned orders within the limitation period. The Department did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous judgment.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. It was found that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, and there was no material to reject the petitioner's contention. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit with the State Government, meaning there was no outstanding demand. Citing the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 30.04.2024. The Assessing Officer was directed 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.

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 affecting their ability to respond within the prescribed limitation period, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the notices and orders were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, making them unaware of the proceedings. This prevented them from appearing before the authority or challenging the orders 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 Department, based on material on record, did not dispute the contentions regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. 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 issues related to the web portal's functionality.