9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (11) TMI 336 - HC - GSTViolation of principles of natural justice - service of notices issued u/s 73 of GST Act - petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notices as well as passing of the order, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned order within the period of limitation - HELD THAT - In the case of OLA FLEET TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS STATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS 2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT a co-oridiante Bench of this Court inter alia observed 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.' In view of the submissions made and the judgement in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order impugned dated 23.08.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Azamgarh (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside. Petition allowed.
Issues:
Challenge to order under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to notices not being uploaded on the correct tab of the G.S.T. Portal. Analysis: The petition challenges an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Azamgarh under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner argues that notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the G.S.T. Portal, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, leading to their unawareness and inability to respond within the limitation period. Reference is made to a previous judgment where a similar issue was considered, and the petitioner was granted the benefit of doubt, resulting in the matter being remanded back to the authority. The Department, represented by the learned counsel, does not dispute the incorrect uploading of notices and orders on the portal. They acknowledge that the issue is covered by a previous judgment involving Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The co-ordinate Bench of the Court in the Ola Fleet case highlighted the importance of due communication of orders and observed that the petitioner's inability to seek remedy within the limitation period was due to the incorrect placement of the order on the portal. The Department's contention that the assessing officer is not at fault is based on the lack of options available to upload orders in a manner visible to the assessee, with the suggestion that the GST Network, a separate entity, should address such issues. Considering the submissions and the precedent set by the Ola Fleet case, the Court allows the writ petition, quashing the impugned order. The Assessing Officer is directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the correct manner, ensuring at least 15 days of clear notice. The petitioner is required to submit a written reply within two weeks, following which the assessing officer must pass a reasoned order within one month from the date of service of notice. As there is no outstanding demand, the writ petition is disposed of, providing clarity on the next steps for both parties in the proceedings.
|
