Procedural Defects in GST Notice Invalidate Tax Order, Requiring Proper Communication and Compliance with Statutory Timelines

HC allowed the writ petition challenging GST tax orders due to incorrect portal notice uploading. The court found procedural irregularities in notice communication, directing the tax authority to issue a fresh notice with proper 15-day period. The petitioner was required to submit a written reply within two weeks, with further proceedings to be conducted in accordance with legal requirements.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against orders passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Tax under Section 73 of GST Act due to incorrect uploading of notices on GST portal.

Analysis:
The petition challenged orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, citing incorrect uploading of notices on the GST portal. The petitioner contended that notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, leading to lack of awareness and inability to question the orders within the limitation period. Reference was made to a previous case where a similar issue was addressed, granting the petitioner the benefit of doubt and remanding the matter back to the authority.

The Department did not dispute the incorrect uploading of notices and orders on the GST portal. It was acknowledged that the issue was covered by a previous judgment in a related case. A co-ordinate Bench of the Court had previously observed that a dispute arose due to the improper communication of orders, not reflecting under the 'view notices and orders' tab on the assessee's portal, but under 'additional notice and orders'. This led to the petitioner being unable to seek a remedy within the limitation period, as highlighted in a previous order of the Court.

The Standing Counsel argued that the assessing officer should not be blamed for the error in uploading, indicating that the GST Network, a separate entity managing the web portal, might be responsible for such issues. The Court found that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt as there was no evidence to reject the claim that the impugned order was not visible under the correct tab. With no outstanding demand and the disputed amount already deposited with the State Government, the Court disposed of the writ petition. The petitioner was directed to treat the impugned order as final notice, submit a written reply within two weeks, and the assessing officer was to issue a fresh notice with a clear 15-day notice period for further proceedings.

Based on the submissions and the precedent of a similar case, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in accordance with the law, with further proceedings to follow based on the new notice.

---