High Court · 2025

2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Act. A notice under Section 61 of the Act intimating discrepancies in return after scrutiny dated

23.02.2024 in Form GST ASMT-10 was issued to the petitioner inter alia indicating several discrepancies.

3. Apparently, no response to the said notice was given resulting in issuance of notice under Section 73 of the Act dated 14.05.2024 fixing 14.06.2024 as the date of filing reply as well as personal hearing.

4. To the said notice also, no response was given, resulting in passing of order dated 23.07.2024 under Section 73 of the Act inter alia raising a demand to the tune of Rs. 14,69,464/-.

5. Submissions have been made that as the notices under Section 61 & 73 of the Act as well as the order passed under Section 73 were not uploaded on the portal in the manner required inasmuch as the same did not show up on the assessee portal under the tab of 'View Notices and Orders' rather they were reflected under the tab 'Additional Notice and Orders', the petitioner did not notice the same.

6. Based on the said submission, a plea has been raised that this Court in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another: Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023 decided on 03.05.2023 and in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Another: Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.07.2024, has laid down that uploading of the notices and orders under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab was not justified and had set aside the orders passed.

7. Further submissions have been made that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside as opportunity as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Act, has not been provided to the petitioner.

8. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the plea raised based on the judgements in M/s Mohini Traders (supra) and Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as the notice under Section 61 of the Act and subsequent notice and orders were all issued after 16.01.2024.

9. Submissions have been made that GSTN has introduced certain changes regarding 'View/Download Notices and Demand Orders' tab on the GST Portal. As per the functionality provided w.e.f.

16.01.2024, 'Additional Notices and Orders' has been clubbed with 'Notices and Orders'. Resultantly, irrespective of the fact whether the user clicks on any of the tabs, the complete set of Notices and Orders are displayed on a common screen, followed by a note explaining under which category a particular notice or order can be viewed and that the tax payers are also intimated about the issuance of the Orders in question on the registered e-mail ID and mobile number and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard is totally baseless.

10. In relation to the plea raised pertaining to the violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act also it was submitted that the said plea is equally baseless inasmuch as when despite show cause notice dated 14.05.2024, the petitioner did not respond to the same, a reminder notice was sent to the petitioner fixing a date for personal hearing, however, despite that when the petitioner did not appear, the order impugned was passed, which does not call for any interference.,

11. Submissions have been made that a spacious plea pertaining to uploading of the notice in a particular tab has been taken only with a view to get over the aspect of not responding to the repeated notices and not questioning the same once the order under Section 73 of the Act was passed and, therefore, petition deserves dismissal. Learned counsel has produced, for perusal of the Court, status of the portal, post 16.01.2024.

12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

13. The entire plea in the petition is based on the fact that the notices and order impugned were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab with the aid of judgements of this Court in M/s Mohini Traders (supra) and Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

14. Apparently, on account of judgements of this Court pertaining to uploading of the notices on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab being not appropriate, the respondents have taken remedial measures and since 16.01.2024, a new functionality has been provided wherein the 'Additional Notices and Orders' has been clubbed with 'Notices and Orders' and irrespective of the fact that whether a user clicks on any of the tabs, a complete set of notices and orders are displayed on a common screen followed by a note explaining under which category a particular notice or order can be viewed.

15. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not accessed the 'Notices and Orders' tab. Once, the functionality, since 16.01.2024 has changed, the plea sought to be raised based on uploading of the notices and orders in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab is not available. In fact the same is baseless and factually incorrect.

16. In view thereof the plea sought to be raised cannot be countenanced.

17. The another plea raised regarding the violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act has no basis inasmuch as after the notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner chose not to file reply/appear for personal hearing, another reminder was issued fixing a date of hearing, which aspect has been clearly noticed in the order impugned and the same has not been questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition and, therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act have, in any manner, been violated.

18. The attempt made to question the validity of the orders after having lost limitation under Section 107 of the Act, based on unsustainable grounds and somehow seek a second lease of life in the circumstances, cannot be countenanced.

19. The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Sandeep (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner is registered under the provisions of the Act. A notice under Section 61 of the Act intimating discrepancies in return after scrutiny dated

23.02.2024 in Form GST ASMT-10 was issued to the petitioner inter alia indicating several discrepancies.

3. Apparently, no response to the said notice was given resulting in issuance of notice under Section 73 of the Act dated 14.05.2024 fixing 14.06.2024 as the date of filing reply as well as personal hearing.

4. To the said notice also, no response was given, resulting in passing of order dated 23.07.2024 under Section 73 of the Act inter alia raising a demand to the tune of Rs. 14,69,464/-.

5. Submissions have been made that as the notices under Section 61 & 73 of the Act as well as the order passed under Section 73 were not uploaded on the portal in the manner required inasmuch as the same did not show up on the assessee portal under the tab of 'View Notices and Orders' rather they were reflected under the tab 'Additional Notice and Orders', the petitioner did not notice the same.

6. Based on the said submission, a plea has been raised that this Court in M/s Mohini Traders Vs. State of U.P. and Another: Writ Tax No. 551 of 2023 decided on 03.05.2023 and in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and Another: Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 decided on 22.07.2024, has laid down that uploading of the notices and orders under the 'Additional Notice and Orders' tab was not justified and had set aside the orders passed.

7. Further submissions have been made that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside as opportunity as contemplated under Section 75(4) of the Act, has not been provided to the petitioner.

8. Learned Standing Counsel vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the plea raised based on the judgements in M/s Mohini Traders (supra) and Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is misplaced inasmuch as the notice under Section 61 of the Act and subsequent notice and orders were all issued after 16.01.2024.

9. Submissions have been made that GSTN has introduced certain changes regarding 'View/Download Notices and Demand Orders' tab on the GST Portal. As per the functionality provided w.e.f.

16.01.2024, 'Additional Notices and Orders' has been clubbed with 'Notices and Orders'. Resultantly, irrespective of the fact whether the user clicks on any of the tabs, the complete set of Notices and Orders are displayed on a common screen, followed by a note explaining under which category a particular notice or order can be viewed and that the tax payers are also intimated about the issuance of the Orders in question on the registered e-mail ID and mobile number and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard is totally baseless.

10. In relation to the plea raised pertaining to the violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act also it was submitted that the said plea is equally baseless inasmuch as when despite show cause notice dated 14.05.2024, the petitioner did not respond to the same, a reminder notice was sent to the petitioner fixing a date for personal hearing, however, despite that when the petitioner did not appear, the order impugned was passed, which does not call for any interference.,

11. Submissions have been made that a spacious plea pertaining to uploading of the notice in a particular tab has been taken only with a view to get over the aspect of not responding to the repeated notices and not questioning the same once the order under Section 73 of the Act was passed and, therefore, petition deserves dismissal. Learned counsel has produced, for perusal of the Court, status of the portal, post 16.01.2024.

12. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

13. The entire plea in the petition is based on the fact that the notices and order impugned were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab with the aid of judgements of this Court in M/s Mohini Traders (supra) and Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (supra).

14. Apparently, on account of judgements of this Court pertaining to uploading of the notices on 'Additional Notices and Orders' Tab being not appropriate, the respondents have taken remedial measures and since 16.01.2024, a new functionality has been provided wherein the 'Additional Notices and Orders' has been clubbed with 'Notices and Orders' and irrespective of the fact that whether a user clicks on any of the tabs, a complete set of notices and orders are displayed on a common screen followed by a note explaining under which category a particular notice or order can be viewed.

15. It is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had not accessed the 'Notices and Orders' tab. Once, the functionality, since 16.01.2024 has changed, the plea sought to be raised based on uploading of the notices and orders in the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab is not available. In fact the same is baseless and factually incorrect.

16. In view thereof the plea sought to be raised cannot be countenanced.

17. The another plea raised regarding the violation of provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act has no basis inasmuch as after the notice under Section 73 of the Act was issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner chose not to file reply/appear for personal hearing, another reminder was issued fixing a date of hearing, which aspect has been clearly noticed in the order impugned and the same has not been questioned by the petitioner in the writ petition and, therefore, it cannot be said that the provisions of Section 75(4) of the Act have, in any manner, been violated.

18. The attempt made to question the validity of the orders after having lost limitation under Section 107 of the Act, based on unsustainable grounds and somehow seek a second lease of life in the circumstances, cannot be countenanced.

19. The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Sandeep (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad