2025 (1) TMI 1522 - HC - GST

Challnege to order passed u/s 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act 2017 - present proceedings were initiated after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed - entitlement to benefit of doubt - HELD THAT - In the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT a coordinate Bench of this Court inter alia observed and held that 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 writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order impugned dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner Commercial Tax Sector-02 Chandauli (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside.

Summary

The judgment from the Allahabad High Court involves a petition challenging an order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Commercial Tax, under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The core issues presented and considered in this case revolve around procedural fairness and the proper communication of tax-related orders.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The primary legal questions considered were:

• Whether the order and reminder notice were communicated to the petitioner in accordance with the prescribed legal procedures under the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017.
• Whether the failure to upload the notice and order on the correct tab of the GST Portal constituted a valid reason to quash the order and demand a fresh notice.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Proper Communication of Orders

• Relevant legal framework and precedents: The case refers to Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which outlines the procedure for issuing notices and determining tax demands. The judgment also references a previous decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., which dealt with similar issues of improper communication through the GST Portal.
• Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner did not receive proper notice of the proceedings as the order was uploaded under the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab instead of the "Due Notices and Orders" tab on the GST Portal. This misplacement led to the petitioner being unaware of the order and unable to respond within the limitation period.
• Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's claim was substantiated by evidence showing the order's incorrect placement on the GST Portal. The Department did not dispute this contention, acknowledging the procedural error.
• Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal principles from the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. case, which established that improper communication through the GST Portal could justify setting aside the order. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the communication error.
• Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that the assessing officer was not at fault, as the portal's design was beyond their control. However, the Court emphasized the need for proper communication and sided with the petitioner, citing the precedent case.
• Conclusions: The Court concluded that the improper communication of the order warranted quashing the impugned order and issuing a fresh notice.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

• Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court reiterated the reasoning from the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. case, emphasizing that the petitioner could not seek appropriate remedy due to the order's incorrect placement on the portal.
• Core principles established: The judgment reinforced the principle that procedural fairness requires proper communication of notices and orders, particularly through official channels like the GST Portal.
• Final determinations on each issue: The Court quashed the order dated 22.11.2023, directing the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days' clear notice to the petitioner, ensuring compliance with legal procedures.

The judgment underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements in tax-related matters, particularly concerning the communication of orders through official portals. The decision provides clarity on the consequences of procedural errors and sets a precedent for similar cases involving communication issues on digital platforms.