Procedural Lapses in GST Notice Invalidate Order, Mandate Proper Communication and Fresh Opportunity for Taxpayer Response

GST case involving procedural irregularities in notice communication. HC found procedural defects in uploading notices on GST portal, rendering the original order invalid. Court quashed the impugned order and directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice, providing the petitioner an opportunity to respond within legal parameters. The ruling emphasized proper communication protocols in tax proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge against order under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 due to lack of proper communication and uploading of notices on the G.S.T. Portal.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, due to lack of communication and proper uploading of notices. The petitioner contended that after responding to the notice, no further communication or intimation was received, leading to the belief that the proceedings had been dropped. However, a reminder and the impugned order were uploaded on the G.S.T. Portal after a significant delay, causing the petitioner to miss the opportunity to question the validity of the order within the limitation period.

The petitioner relied on a previous judgment in a similar case, where it was held that notices should be uploaded under the "Due Notices and Orders" tab, not the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab. The Department did not dispute the incorrect uploading of the reminder notice and order. The Court observed that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt due to the improper uploading of notices, as per the previous judgment, and remanded the matter back to the authority.

In another case cited during the proceedings, it was highlighted that the petitioner could not seek a remedy against an order not uploaded in the correct manner within the limitation period. The Standing Counsel argued that the assessing officer was not at fault, as the web portal did not provide an option to upload orders in a way visible to the assessee. The Court found that the petitioner deserved the benefit of doubt as the impugned order was not reflecting under the correct tab, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. The disputed amount was already deposited with the State Government, eliminating any outstanding demand.

Based on the submissions and precedents, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the impugned order and directing the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner for further proceedings in accordance with the law.

---