Case Details
-
Case Title: National Gas Service v. State of U.P. and Others
-
Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Chief Justice’s Court
-
Petition No.: Writ Tax No. 2409 of 2024
-
Judgment Date: 20.12.2024
-
Coram: Hon’ble Arun Bhansali, CJ and Hon’ble Vikas Budhwar, J.
-
Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:199678-DB
-
Category: Demand under Section 73 – Procedural lapse in service of notice
-
Relevant Section: Section 73, CGST Act, 2017
Facts of the Case (Paras 1–2)
The petitioner, National Gas Service, challenged the order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Prayagraj under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017. The grievance was that the notices initiating proceedings were not displayed under the “View Notices and Orders” tab of the GST portal but were instead uploaded under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab. Consequently, the petitioner remained unaware of the notices and the resultant demand order and was deprived of the opportunity to contest within the limitation period.
Questions / Dispute
Whether uploading notices and orders under the “Additional Notices and Orders” tab instead of the “View Notices and Orders” tab constitutes valid service of notice under Section 73 of the CGST Act, 2017.
Observations of the Court (Paras 3–5)
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024, decided on 22.07.2024) where similar circumstances had arisen. In that case, the Court had held that an assessee is entitled to the benefit of doubt when orders are not properly reflected under the correct tab. Reliance was also placed on M/s Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023, decided on 03.05.2023) where the same reasoning was adopted.
The Court noted that even the Department’s counsel did not dispute that the notices and orders were incorrectly reflected. It was also recognized that the technical issue of how orders are displayed on the portal is linked to the GST Network system, not the assessing officer.
Judgment / Verdict (Paras 6–7)
The High Court quashed the order dated 30.12.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of improper communication of notice. It directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days clear time to respond and then proceed in accordance with law.
Thus, the writ petition was allowed.
Case Law Table
| Case | Citation | Ratio / Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. | Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024, decided on 22.07.2024 | Notices uploaded under “Additional Notices and Orders” instead of “View Notices and Orders” invalid; benefit of doubt to assessee; matter remanded. |
| M/s Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. | Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023, decided on 03.05.2023 (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:115008-DB) | Non-reflection of notices under correct portal tab amounts to denial of opportunity; orders liable to be set aside. |
| National Gas Service v. State of U.P. (present case) | Neutral Citation 2024:AHC:199678-DB | Demand order under Section 73 quashed; fresh notice required to be issued with due communication. |
Between Fine Lines
This judgment reinforces that technical lapses in GST portal communication cannot prejudice taxpayers. If notices are uploaded in the wrong tab, it amounts to a denial of natural justice. For trade and industry, the case is a reminder to monitor portal updates carefully and to challenge demand orders where notice service is questionable.
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.”
