Case Law Details
Tasneef Ahmad Mirza Vs Union of India and 4 others (Allahabad High Court)
Reminder notice and order under Section 73 were uploaded under ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ tab instead of ‘Due Notices and Orders’ tab on GST portal, preventing timely response
Summary: In the case of Tasneef Ahmad Mirza Vs Union of India & Others (Allahabad High Court), the petitioner challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of State Tax, Kanpur, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax (GST) Act, 2017, which involved a demand raised against him. The petitioner claimed that after filing a response to a notice issued in December 2023, he did not receive any further communication, including a personal hearing notice. Consequently, the petitioner believed that the proceedings had been dropped. However, around four months later, the reminder notice and order were uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab on the GST portal, which the petitioner failed to notice, preventing him from responding within the prescribed period of limitation.
The petitioner argued that the uploading of the reminder notice under the wrong tab, instead of the “Due Notices and Orders” tab, had denied him the opportunity to respond within the statutory time frame. This issue had been previously addressed in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Ltd. v. State of U.P., where the Allahabad High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, remanding the matter due to similar issues with notice uploads. In that case, the court recognized that the failure to upload notices under the correct tab on the GST portal could mislead taxpayers and prevent timely responses. The department did not dispute the petitioner’s claims regarding the wrong tab upload.
Considering the precedent set in Ola Fleet Technologies and the fact that the petitioner was unaware of the reminder notice due to the error in the GST portal, the Allahabad High Court allowed the petition. The impugned order was quashed, and the court directed that the Assessing Officer issue a fresh notice, allowing the petitioner at least 15 days to respond. This decision ensures that the petitioner is granted a fair opportunity to contest the demand in accordance with the law.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. This petition is directed against order dated 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 whereby demand has been created against the petitioner.
2. Submissions have been made that after filing of response by the petitioner to the notice issued under Section 73 of the Act on 28.12.2023, the respondent authorities neither issued any notice of personal hearing nor issued any intimation pertaining to the present proceedings and therefore, as the present proceedings were initiated after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed, petitioner was under reasonable impression that the proceedings have been dropped. However, after a lapse of about four months, a reminder and order impugned came to be uploaded on ‘Additional Notices and Orders’ Tab of the G.S.T. Portal, which is evident from Annexure-7 and consequently, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of the said reminder as well as passing of the orders, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned orders within the period of limitation.
3. Submission has been made that this Court in Ola Fleet Technologies 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 reminder notice and order 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 co- oridiante Bench of this Court inter alia observed and came to the following conclusion:-
4. Ultimately, vide last order dated 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 asseseess 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 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 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 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 23.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-16, Kanpur Nagar (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) 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
