9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 214 - HC - GSTChallenge to order whereby demand has been created against the petitioner - notices have not been uploaded on the Due Notices and Orders and instead uploaded on Additional Notices and Orders - entitlement of benefit of doubt - 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 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 entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore there is no outstanding demand. The order impugned dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner State Tax Sector-19 Varanasi (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 based on procedural irregularities and lack of communication leading to demand creation. Analysis: The petition challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, creating a demand against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that after responding to the notice issued under Section 73, no further communication was received regarding personal hearing or the proceedings. It was argued that the proceedings seemed dropped due to lack of intimation within the prescribed time limit. However, a reminder and the impugned order were uploaded on the GST portal after a significant delay, causing the petitioner to miss the opportunity to question the validity of the order within the limitation period. In a similar case, the court had previously ruled in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. that notices not uploaded under the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab but under 'Additional Notices and Orders' entitled the petitioner to the benefit of doubt. The court remanded the matter back to the authority in that case. The Department did not dispute the irregular uploading of the reminder notice and order, acknowledging that the issue was covered by the judgment in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. The court referred to a previous case where the petitioner claimed that an order was not uploaded in the required manner, leading to a failure to seek appropriate remedy within the limitation period. The court noted the contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'view notices and orders' tab. The court acknowledged that the disputed amount was already deposited with the State Government, leading to the disposal of the petition with directions for the petitioner to treat the impugned order as final and submit a reply within two weeks. Considering the submissions and the precedent set by the Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. case, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, ensuring at least 15 days clear notice and conducting further proceedings based on the new notice in accordance with the law.
|
