M/S Raghvendra Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Raghvendra Singh, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Karwi, Chitrakoot, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, which created a demand against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that notices issued under Section 73 were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, not the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. Consequently, the petitioner was unaware of the notices and the order, preventing them from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within the limitation period. The respondent, State of U.P. and others, did not dispute these contentions.

Held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Karwi, Chitrakoot. The Court found that the petitioner's contention regarding the uploading of notices and orders on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab was not disputed by the respondent. This fact, coupled with the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, led the Court to conclude that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The reasoning was that such improper uploading prevented the petitioner from being aware of the proceedings and availing their remedies within the stipulated time. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner with at least 15 days' clear notice in the manner prescribed in accordance with law, and thereafter, further proceedings may take place.

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 prescribed limitation period, as per Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the notices and the impugned order were not uploaded in the manner required, as they did not appear under the 'view notices and orders' tab but rather under the 'additional notice and orders' tab. This prevented them from seeking appropriate remedies within the limitation period. They relied on the judgment 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 Argument: The respondent, through learned Standing Counsel, 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).