2025 (4) TMI 305 - HC - GST

GST orders quashed for improper service under portal notices tab, input tax credit remanded for fresh adjudication

Maharishi Solar Technology Pvt Ltd Versus State of U.P. And 3 Others

The Allahabad HC quashed GST orders dated 07.06.2024 and 30.03.2022 due to improper service, finding the orders were not properly displayed under the GST ... Principles of natural justice - Valid service of order or not - uploading of the order under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab on the GST portal - Condonation of delay in filing appeal - power of appellate authority to condone delay - HELD THAT:- The issue in hand is no more res integra and the same has already been decided by the Division Bench of this Court. In Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited [2024 (7) TMI 1543 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], this Court held '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. We find, no useful purpose may be served for keeping this petition pending or calling for a counter affidavit or even relegating the petitioner to the available statutory remedy. The entire disputed amount is lying in deposit with the State Government. Therefore, there is no outstanding demand.' Conclusion - i) The orders dated 07.06.2024 and 30.03.2022 are quashed due to improper service. ii) The petitioner is entitled to the claimed ITC, subject to fresh adjudication. iii) The flawed service justifies a remand for fresh proceedings. The matter is remanded to the authority concerned to adjudicate the matter afresh - petition allowed by way of remand. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe primary legal questions considered in this case include: Whether the impugned orders dated 07.06.2024 and 30.03.2022 were validly served upon the petitioner. Whether the petitioner was entitled to input tax credit (ITC) carried forward from the VAT regime to the GST regime. Whether the appellate authority had the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal under section 107 of the GST Act. Whether the uploading of the order under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab on the GST portal constituted valid service of the order.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS1. Valid Service of OrdersRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The issue of valid service of orders relates to the procedural requirements under the GST Act for notifying parties of decisions affecting them. The Court referred to precedents such as Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited and Atul Agrawal, which dealt with similar issues of notice service under the GST framework.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the order dated 30.03.2022 was uploaded under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab rather than the 'Notices & Orders' tab, which led to the petitioner not being aware of the order. The Court found that this method of service did not meet the requirements for valid notification, as established in previous judgments.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found no evidence to contradict the petitioner's claim that the order was not visible under the correct tab on the GST portal, thus supporting the argument that the petitioner was not duly notified.Application of Law to Facts: The Court applied the principles from previous cases, concluding that the service of the order was not valid, and the period of limitation for filing an appeal did not commence as claimed by the respondents.Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Court considered the respondent's argument that the order was uploaded correctly but found the petitioner's evidence and precedent more compelling.2. Entitlement to Input Tax Credit (ITC)Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The transition from the VAT regime to the GST regime and the rules governing the carry forward of ITC were central to this issue. The Court examined the petitioner's claim to ITC based on the assessment order and subsequent rectification.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the petitioner had not utilized the ITC and that the credit remained in the electronic credit register. The amalgamation with another company did not affect the entitlement to the credit.Key Evidence and Findings: The Court found that the petitioner had made an application for a refund and filled up the TRAN-1 form to claim the ITC, which was not utilized.Application of Law to Facts: The Court determined that the petitioner's claim to the ITC was valid under the transitional provisions of the GST Act.3. Power to Condonation of DelayRelevant Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 107 of the GST Act governs the appellate process, including the power to condone delays in filing appeals.Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the appellate authority did not have the power to condone the delay as per the statutory limits set by the GST Act.Key Evidence and Findings: The appellate authority's rejection of the appeal due to lack of power to condone the delay was consistent with the statutory framework.Application of Law to Facts: The Court upheld the appellate authority's decision but noted that the initial service of the order was flawed, which affected the petitioner's ability to file an appeal timely.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGSThe Court held that the impugned orders were not validly served, as the method of uploading them under the 'Additional Notices & Orders' tab did not constitute proper service. The Court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.Core Principles Established: Proper service of orders under the GST regime requires adherence to specified notification methods, and failure to do so invalidates the service. The transition from VAT to GST must respect the entitlements to ITC as per transitional provisions, and procedural errors in notification can affect the limitation period for appeals.Final Determinations on Each Issue: The orders dated 07.06.2024 and 30.03.2022 were quashed due to improper service. The petitioner was entitled to the claimed ITC, subject to fresh adjudication. The appellate authority's lack of power to condone delay was acknowledged, but the flawed service justified a remand for fresh proceedings.