Non-communication of an ex-parte order allows the assessee to re-open the proceedings.
Issue
Whether an ex-parte order passed against an assessee under Section 73 of the CGST Act is valid when the notice was not properly communicated to the assessee through the designated portal tab.
Brief Facts
An ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner-assessee under Section 73. The assessee claimed that the order was not properly communicated to them as it appeared under the ‘additional notices and orders’ tab instead of the standard ‘view notices and orders’ tab on the GST portal. The entire disputed amount was already deposited with the State Government.
Decision
The court held that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Since no material existed to reject the assessee’s contention regarding the improper communication of the order, the court ruled in favor of the assessee. The court directed the assessee to treat the impugned order as a final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks. The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice to the assessee in the prescribed manner.
Key Takeaways
- Proper Communication is Crucial: The case highlights the importance of proper and clear communication of official notices and orders to the assessee through the designated channels on the GST portal.
- Benefit of Doubt: In situations where there is ambiguity or a lack of evidence to refute the assessee’s claim of non-receipt or improper communication of a notice, the court may grant the assessee the benefit of the doubt.
- Re-opening Proceedings: An ex-parte order can be set aside, and the proceedings can be re-opened if it is proven that the assessee did not receive a proper notice or communication of the order.
- No Outstanding Demand: The fact that the entire disputed amount was already in deposit with the State Government may have influenced the court’s decision, as there was no outstanding financial demand.
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Uma Shankar Mishra Thekedar
v.
State of U.P.
Shekhar B. Saraf and Praveen Kumar Giri, JJ.
WRIT TAX No. 4322 of 2025
SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
Pooja Talwar for the Petitioner. Ankur Agarwal, Ld. Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Heard Ms. Pooja Talwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ankur Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed for the following relief:-
| “(i) | Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the ex-parte impugned order dated 20.04.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 under Section 73 (9) of the U.P. Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 for the financial year April, 2018 to March, 2019 (Annexure No.1 to the present writ petition)” |
| (ii) | Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned demand dated 20.04.2024 in Form GST DRC-07 passed by respondent no.2(Annexure no.1 to the present writ petition); |
| (iii) | Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent not to take coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned order; |
| (iv) | Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the facts and circumstances of the case; and |
| (v) | Award the cost of the petitioner to the petitioner.” |
3. Ultimately, the dispute between the parties boiled down to the issue due communication of the impugned order dated 20.04.2024. The petitioner claims that the same was not uploaded in the manner required inasmuch as the impugned order does not show up on the asseseess portal under the tab “view notices and orders”. Rather, it reflects under the other tab for “additional notice and orders”.
4. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner could not seek appropriate remedy against that order, within limitation. Reliance is placed on an earlier order of the Court in Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. /98 GST 818/75 GSTL 460 (Allahabad)/Writ Tax No.551 of 2023 decided on 03.05.2023/[Neutral Citation No.2023:AHC:115008-DB].
5. On the other hand upon written instructions received learned Standing Counsel would contend that the assessing officer is not to blame for any error being cited by the assessee. Referring to the web portal available to the assessing officer, it had been indicated that there is no option/ choice available to the assessing officer to upload the order in the manner that it may reflect under any one of the particular tabs visible to the assessee. On query made, Shri Ankur Agarwal fairly states that if it all issue may have to be addressed by the GST Network a separate entity constituted to design maintain and run the web portal.
6. At present, 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. 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. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, with a direction, the assessee may treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit his written reply within a period of two weeks. Thereupon the assessing officer may issue a fresh notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed with at least fifteen days clear notice. The petitioner undertakes to appear on the date fixed. Appropriate reasoned and speaking order may be passed within a further period of one month from the date of service of notice on the petitioner.