2025 (1) TMI 54 - HC - GST

Challenge to order u/s 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 - valid communication of notice or not - 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 - 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 coordinate 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.' Conclusion - Proper communication of notices is essential for the validity of tax demands. Incorrect placement of notices on the GST portal does not constitute valid communication. The order impugned dated 23.07.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Division-7, Prayagraj (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) is quashed and set aside - petition allowed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether the notices issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, were properly communicated to the petitioner.
Whether the uploading of notices on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab constitutes a valid communication under the Act.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to any relief due to the alleged improper communication of the notices.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Proper Communication of Notices

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, governs the issuance of notices for tax demands. The precedent set by the case of Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. is relevant, where similar issues of notice communication were addressed.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court noted that the notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, which was not the intended method of communication. This issue was previously recognized in the Ola Fleet Technologies case, where the court found that such uploading did not constitute proper notice.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found that the petitioner was unaware of the notices due to their incorrect placement on the GST portal, as evidenced by the petition and the annexures provided.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the reasoning from the Ola Fleet Technologies case, concluding that the petitioner was not properly notified and thus could not respond within the limitation period.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The department did not dispute the petitioner's contentions regarding the improper uploading of notices. The court noted that the issue might be technical, related to the GST Network's portal design.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the notices were not properly communicated, and thus, the petitioner was entitled to relief.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Relief

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referenced its earlier decision in Ola Fleet Technologies, which provided for relief in similar circumstances.
Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court determined that the petitioner should be given the benefit of the doubt due to the improper notice communication.
Key Evidence and Findings: The court found no evidence to refute the petitioner's claim that they were unaware of the notices.
Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the principles from the Ola Fleet Technologies case, deciding to quash the impugned order and allow the petitioner to respond to a fresh notice.
Treatment of Competing Arguments: The court acknowledged the department's position that the issue might be due to the GST Network's portal design but found this insufficient to deny relief.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the petitioner should be allowed to respond to a newly issued notice, thus providing them an opportunity to contest the tax demand.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "At present, it does appear that the petitioner is entitled to a benefit of doubt. No material exists to reject the contention being advanced that the impugned order was not reflecting under the tab 'view notices and orders'.
Core Principles Established: The court reaffirmed the principle that proper communication of notices is essential for the validity of tax demands. Incorrect placement of notices on the GST portal does not constitute valid communication.
Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court quashed the order dated 23.07.2024, directing the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice with at least 15 days' clear notice to the petitioner, allowing them to respond appropriately.

This judgment emphasizes the importance of proper procedural compliance in tax matters, particularly regarding the communication of notices. The court's decision to quash the impugned order and allow for a fresh notice underscores the necessity of ensuring taxpayers are adequately informed to exercise their rights effectively.

← Previous Next →