9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (12) TMI 999 - HC - GSTService of notices - Challenge to demand created u/s 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - notices were uploaded on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab of the G.S.T. Portal, the petitioner being unaware of issuance of the notices as well as passing of the orders, could neither appear before the authority nor question the validity of the impugned orders within the period of limitation - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - In the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd 2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT a co-oridiante Bench of this Court inter alia held that ' The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore, there is no outstanding demand. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner.' The orders impugned dated 24.11.2023 and 30.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-10, Noida (Annexures-3 4 to the writ petition) are quashed and set aside - petition allowed.
Issues: Challenge against orders passed by Deputy Commissioner under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to notices being uploaded on the wrong portal tab, entitlement to benefit of doubt, consideration of replies and annexures by the assessing officer, and the direction for fresh notice and further proceedings.
Analysis: The petitioner challenged orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, citing that notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab. This led to the petitioner being unaware of the notices and orders, hindering their ability to respond within the limitation period. Reference was made to a previous judgment highlighting a similar situation where the petitioner was granted the benefit of doubt, resulting in the matter being remanded back to the authority for reconsideration. In the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd, it was observed that the issue revolved around the due communication of the impugned order, which was not uploaded in the correct manner on the assessee's portal. The assessing officer's inability to upload the order in a manner visible to the assessee was noted. Despite the absence of the order under the 'view notices and orders' tab, the petitioner was considered entitled to the benefit of doubt. The court directed the petitioner to treat the impugned order as final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks, with the assessing officer required to issue a fresh notice within fifteen days for further proceedings. The judgment in the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd was pivotal in the decision of the High Court, leading to the quashing and setting aside of the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with the law, ensuring at least 15 days clear notice for further proceedings to take place. The petitioner's entitlement to the benefit of doubt, coupled with the procedural irregularities in uploading notices, formed the basis for allowing the writ petition and setting aside the impugned orders.
|
