Case details
-
Case Title: M/s Mustard Clothing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
-
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Court No. 40
-
Petition No.: Writ Tax No. 2291 of 2024
-
Judgment Date: 16.12.2024
-
Coram: Hon’ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. & Hon’ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.
-
Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:196648-DB
-
Dispute Category: Recovery proceedings – validity of GST demand order
-
Relevant Provisions: Section 73, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017
Facts of the case (Para 1–2)
The petitioner, a registered taxpayer, challenged demand orders dated 24.11.2023 and 30.09.2023 issued under Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Noida. The grievance was that the statutory notices and consequential orders were uploaded not under the “Due Notices and Orders” tab but under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal. This prevented the petitioner from becoming aware of the proceedings and, as a result, they could not contest the matter within limitation.
Questions before the court
-
Whether uploading of notices and orders under “Additional Notices and Orders” instead of “Due Notices and Orders” amounts to valid service of notice under GST law?
-
Whether the resultant demand orders are sustainable in absence of proper communication to the assessee?
Observations (Para 3–5)
The Court noted that an identical issue had been dealt with in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 855/2024, decided on 22.07.2024). In that case, the Court held that uploading notices in the wrong tab deprived the assessee of proper communication and thus entitled them to the benefit of doubt. Reliance was also placed on Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 551/2023, decided on 03.05.2023).
The Department admitted that the impugned notices indeed appeared under “Additional Notices and Orders” and not under “Due Notices and Orders”. The Court further recorded that this issue is attributable to technical design of the GSTN portal and not to the conduct of the assessee. Hence, denial of opportunity of hearing was established.
Judgment (Para 6–7)
The High Court quashed the impugned orders dated 24.11.2023 and 30.09.2023. It directed that the assessing authority may issue a fresh notice giving at least 15 days clear time to the petitioner in the manner prescribed under law, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order after due hearing.
Table of cases referred
| Case | Citation | Ratio/Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & Ors. | Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024, decided on 22.07.2024 | Held that uploading of notices in “Additional Notices and Orders” instead of “Due Notices and Orders” entitles assessee to benefit of doubt; matter remanded for fresh hearing. |
| Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. & Anr. | Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023, Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:115008-DB | Recognized that technical lapses in GST portal causing lack of proper communication cannot prejudice assessee’s right of appeal/reply. |
Between fine lines (Practical takeaway)
For taxpayers, this judgment reaffirms that mere uploading of notices on GST portal does not amount to valid service if placed in the wrong tab. Businesses must vigilantly check both tabs, but authorities cannot penalize them for systemic flaws of the GSTN. Any demand order passed without proper communication of notice is vulnerable to being struck down.
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.”