GST demand quashed as notices uploaded under “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of “View Notices and Orders” tab were held to vitiate communication and deprive assessee of opportunity

Case Summary

Case Title: Nec Electronics Corporation v. State of U.P. & Others
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Petition No.: Writ Tax No. 3207 of 2025
Date of Judgement: 18 July 2025
Coram: Hon’ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon’ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.
Category of Dispute: Demand under Section 73 – Validity of notice communication
Relevant Sections: Section 73, CGST Act 2017

Facts (Para 1–2)

The petitioner, Nec Electronics Corporation, challenged an order dated 19 April 2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, NOIDA under Section 73 of the CGST Act, whereby a demand was created. The petitioner contended that the notices and orders were uploaded only in the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal and not in the “View Notices and Orders” tab. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the proceedings, could not appear before the authority, and was prevented from contesting the demand within limitation.

Questions before the Court

1. Whether communication of notices and orders through the wrong tab (“Additional Notices and Orders”) on the GST portal can be treated as due service under Section 73?

2. Whether denial of proper communication deprives the assessee of its right to contest demand orders?

Observations (Para 3–5)

The Court noted that a similar issue was settled in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024, decided on 22.07.2024) where it was held that if notices do not appear in the “View Notices and Orders” tab but only in the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab, the assessee is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

It was further observed that this technical lapse is not attributable to the assessing officer, as the GST portal design is maintained by GSTN. However, when such notices fail to appear in the prescribed communication tab, the assessee is deprived of an opportunity to respond, thus violating principles of natural justice.

The Court also referred to M/s Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023, decided on 03.05.2023) which dealt with the same issue and extended similar relief.

Judgement (Para 6–7)

The Court quashed the impugned order dated 19 April 2024 on the ground that notices were not duly communicated. The matter was remanded back with liberty to the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days clear time in accordance with law. The assessee undertook to appear on the date fixed, and the officer was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order after hearing.

Table – Cases Referred

Between Fine Lines

This judgment reiterates that procedural lapses in the GST portal can vitiate demand orders. For taxpayers, it clarifies that if orders are not visible under the “View Notices and Orders” tab, such communication is defective. For the Department, it highlights the need for system reforms in GSTN to prevent denial of natural justice. Businesses must regularly check both tabs but can contest demands where notices are improperly communicated.

Disclaimer – “The above summary is for academic purpose only; not formal legal opinion. Seek professional opinion before application. Author or publisher or website shall not be responsible for any usage in any form.”