Case Law Details
Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited Vs State of Up And 2 Others (Allahabad High Court)
In this case petitioner contended that the impugned order was not properly communicated through the GST portal, as it appeared under the “additional notices and orders” tab instead of “view notices and orders.” This, they argued, prevented them from seeking remedies within the statutory limitation period. Referring to a precedent in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P., the petitioner claimed that the principles of natural justice were violated due to the improper display and handling of their submissions by the assessing officer. The State’s counsel acknowledged technical limitations in the GST portal’s functionality but argued that no fault lay with the assessing officer.
The court found merit in the petitioner’s claims and provided the benefit of the doubt. It directed that the petitioner treat the July 12, 2023, order as the final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. The assessing officer must then issue a fresh notice, granting at least 15 days’ notice for compliance, and pass a reasoned order within a month. Given that the disputed amount was already deposited with the government, the court saw no purpose in further adjudication or requiring a counter-affidavit, thus disposing of the writ petition.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
1. Heard Shri M.P. Devnath, assisted by Shri Nishant Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief:-
“A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12.07.2023 (Annexure-8) issued/ passed by respondent no.3, as the same has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, without considering the explanation furnished by the petitioner;
B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned show cause notice dated 17.08.2022 (Annexure-2) issued by the respondent no.3, as the same has been issued without issuing/ serving ASMT-10 as mandated under law;”
3. Matter has been heard on various dates.
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 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 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.
Order Date :- 22.7.2024
Author Bio
