Case Law Details
Rama Enterprises Vs State of U.P. And Another (Allahabad High Court)
The writ petition challenged an order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Mainpuri, Etawah, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, whereby a demand was raised against the petitioner.
The petitioner contended that the notices issued under Section 73 and the subsequent order were uploaded on the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST Portal rather than the “Due Notices and Orders” tab. As a result, the petitioner remained unaware of the issuance of the notices and the passing of the order, and consequently could neither appear before the authority nor challenge the order within the prescribed period of limitation.
In support of its case, the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Others, decided on 22.07.2024, where the Court had considered an identical issue. In that case, the Court found that notices uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the “Due Notices and Orders” tab entitled the assessee to the benefit of doubt, and accordingly remanded the matter to the assessing authority.
The Department did not dispute the petitioner’s contention that the notices and order had been uploaded on the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab rather than the “Due Notices and Orders” tab. It also accepted that the controversy raised in the present petition was covered by the decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
The High Court reproduced the relevant observations from the earlier judgment. In Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd., the principal dispute concerned whether the impugned order had been properly communicated to the assessee. The petitioner in that case asserted that the order did not appear under the “View Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal but instead appeared only under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, preventing it from availing the statutory remedy within the prescribed limitation period.
The Department had argued in the earlier case that the assessing officer had no control over the manner in which notices or orders appeared on the assessee’s portal and that any issue relating to the display of notices would have to be addressed by the GST Network, which designs, maintains, and operates the portal. Nevertheless, the Court observed that there was no material to reject the assessee’s contention that the order was not visible under the appropriate tab. It therefore held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court also noted that disputes existed regarding whether all replies and annexures submitted by the assessee had been displayed to and considered by the assessing officer. Since the disputed amount had already been deposited with the State Government and no outstanding demand remained, the Court considered it unnecessary to keep the writ petition pending or relegate the petitioner to the statutory appellate remedy. Instead, it permitted the assessee to treat the impugned order as the final notice, directed the assessee to submit a written reply within two weeks, and required the assessing officer to issue a fresh notice in the prescribed manner with at least 15 clear days’ notice before passing a fresh reasoned and speaking order.
Considering the submissions of both parties and the applicability of the earlier judgment, the Allahabad High Court held that the present case was fully covered by the decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This petition is directed against order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-1, Mainpuri, Etawah, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 whereby demand has been created against the petitioner.
2. Submission has been made that notices issued under Section 73 of the Act, were uploaded on ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ Tab of the G.S.T. Portal, which is evident from Annexure-6 to the writ petition and consequently, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notice as well as passing of the order, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned order within the period of limitation.
3. Submission has been made that this Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others, Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.7.2024 taking note of the said aspect of the matter wherein notices have not been uploaded on the ‘Due Notices and Orders’ and instead uploaded on ‘Additional Notices and Orders’, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequently, the matter has been remanded back to the authority.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Department based on the material available on record does not dispute the contentions raised pertaining to uploading of the notices and orders on the ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ Tab instead of ‘Due Notices and Orders’ Tab and the fact that the issue as raised is covered by judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (Supra).
5. In the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (Supra) a coordinate Bench of this Court inter alia observed and came to the following conclusion:-
“4. Ultimately, vide last order dated 05.04.2024 the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue due communication of the impugned order dated 12.07.2023. The petitioner claims that the same was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the assesses portal under the tab “view notices and orders”. Rather, it reflects under the other tab for “additional notice and orders”.
5. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner could not seek appropriate remedy against that order, within limitation. Reliance is placed on an earlier order of the Court in Writ Tax No.551 of 2023 (M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 03.05.2023 [Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC:115008-DB].
6. On the other hand upon written instructions received learned Standing Counsel would contend that the assessing officer is not to blame for any error being cited by the assessee. Referring to the web portal available to the assessing officer, it had been indicated that there is no option/choice available to the assessing officer to upload the order in the manner that it may reflect under any one of the particular tabs visible to the assessee. On query made, Shri Ankur Agarwal fairly states that if it all issue may have to be addressed by the GST Network a separate entity constituted to design maintain and run the web portal.
7. At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exist to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab “view notices and orders”. On merits, as noted in the earlier orders an other dispute exists whether all replies and annexures to the replies as filed by the assessee were displayed to the assessing officer and whether those have been considered. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore, there is no outstanding demand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner.”
6. In view of the submissions made and the judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd (Supra) the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order impugned dated 21.12.2023 is quashed and set aside.
7. The Assessing Officer may issue a fresh at least 15 days clear notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed in accordance with law and based on the said notice, further proceedings may take place.
Author Bio
