Court Cancels GST Order Due to Notice Errors; Fresh Notice Required with 15 Days for Compliance.

The court quashed the impugned order issued under Section 73 of the Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017, due to procedural irregularities, including improper communication and uploading of notices. The court directed the Assessing Officer to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner, ensuring a minimum of 15 days' clear notice for compliance, and to conduct further proceedings in accordance with the law. The decision was influenced by a precedent where similar procedural errors were acknowledged, granting the petitioner the benefit of doubt.

---

---

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.

---