Facts of the Case

S.S.Traders, through its proprietor Mohd. Naushad Ali, challenged an order dated 26.07.2024 passed under Section 74 of the CGST Act, 2017 / UPGST Act, 2017, and a further order dated 20.08.2025 dismissing its appeal as time-barred. The petitioner's grievance was that the notices issued under Section 74 had been uploaded only under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, of which it remained unaware, in addition to a broader complaint that no genuine opportunity of personal hearing had ever been afforded.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an order under Section 74, based on a notice uploaded only under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, and passed without personal hearing, can be sustained along with the resulting time-barred appellate dismissal.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The notice under Section 74 was uploaded only under 'Additional Notices and Orders', as evidenced by Annexure-4, depriving the petitioner of effective notice and any real opportunity of hearing.
  • The issue was covered by the binding Division Bench ruling in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Ltd v. State of U.P., Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024 [2024:AHC:116559-DB].

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel did not dispute that the notices and orders had been uploaded under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, fairly conceding the issue stood covered by Ola Fleet Technologies.

Court Order / Findings

  • Extracting paragraphs 4 to 7 of Ola Fleet Technologies, the Court held the petitioner entitled to the benefit of doubt, since no material existed to show the notice was ever visible under 'view notices and orders'.
  • The Court held the impugned orders dated 26.07.2024 and 20.08.2025 could not be sustained since the underlying notice was uploaded only under 'Additional Notices and Orders', quashing both.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.
  • The writ petition was allowed.

Important Clarification

  • The wrong-portal-tab defect renders both Section 73 and Section 74 notices equally vulnerable to being quashed, since the underlying vice — denial of effective communication — is identical regardless of which provision is invoked.
  • Where the disputed demand arose from an intelligence-based Section 74 proceeding rather than a routine Section 73 mismatch, the same Ola Fleet Technologies relief still applies if the portal-tab defect is established.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid/short paid involving fraud or wilful misstatement.
  • Section 107, CGST Act, 2017 – appeal against orders of the adjudicating authority.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee, S.S.Traders — the demand order and time-barred appellate dismissal were both quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Court No. 6) – Writ Tax No. 1169 of 2025 – Coram: Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J. – Order dated 17.10.2025.

Link to Download the Order

Click here to view/download the full order

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.