M/S Hari Ram Krishan Kumar vs. Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Bulandshahr And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Hari Ram Krishan Kumar, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 14.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-3, Bulandshahr, 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, making them unaware of the proceedings and unable to respond within the limitation period. The revenue did not dispute these contentions, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of the High Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt regarding the due communication of the impugned order. The Court found that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, which prevented the petitioner from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period. Relying on the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 14.12.2023. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and to conduct further proceedings based on this fresh notice. The Court noted that the entire disputed amount was lying in deposit and there was no outstanding demand, thus avoiding the need to keep the petition pending or relegate 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 due communication to the petitioner, thereby impacting their ability to respond within the limitation period? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that due to the incorrect uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, they were unaware of the proceedings and could not file a response or challenge the impugned order within the prescribed 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 learned Standing Counsel for the Department did not dispute the factual contention regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab. They acknowledged that the issue was covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies judgment. The Department's earlier stance, as noted in the Ola Fleet case, was that the assessing officer has no control over which tab the order reflects under, and that the GST Network is responsible for the portal's design and maintenance.