Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/S Harbansh Singh Bindra, challenged orders dated 30.12.2023 and 28.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Bareilly, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, creating a demand for financial year 2017-18. The petitioner's grievance was that the Section 73 notice had been uploaded only under the GST Portal's 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab rather than the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, so the petitioner remained unaware of both the notice and the resulting order and could neither respond nor challenge it within limitation. The Department's counsel did not dispute this factual position before the Allahabad High Court, which had earlier considered an identical grievance in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading a Section 73 show cause notice under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, amounts to valid service.
  2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to benefit of doubt where the Department's own portal design caused the notice to be effectively hidden from the assessee.
  3. What relief is appropriate where the disputed tax amount already stands deposited with the Government.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The show cause notice under Section 73 was placed only under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, a location the ordinary assessee would not routinely check, denying effective notice.
  • This precise grievance stood squarely covered by the Allahabad High Court's own ruling in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P., which in turn relied on M/s Mohini Traders v. State of U.P., where similarly placed notices were held insufficient.
  • Since the petitioner never had effective notice, it could neither appear before the authority nor challenge the order within the limitation period.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel, on instructions, did not dispute that the notices had been uploaded under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, and accepted that the issue was covered by Ola Fleet Technologies.
  • It was submitted that the assessing officer was not personally at fault, since the web portal offered no choice to control under which tab a notice or order would be displayed to the assessee.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court reproduced its reasoning in Ola Fleet Technologies, holding that the petitioner deserved the benefit of doubt as there was no material to reject the claim that the order did not appear under 'view notices and orders'.
  • Where a GST notice or order is placed only under 'Additional Notices and Orders' rather than the regular notices tab, the assessee is entitled to treat this as inadequate service and the resulting order is liable to be set aside.
  • The impugned orders dated 30.12.2023 and 28.09.2023 were quashed and set aside in their entirety.
  • The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Important Clarification

  • Placement of statutory notices under a portal's secondary or 'additional' tab, rather than its primary notices tab, does not constitute adequate service under the CGST/SGST framework as interpreted by the Allahabad High Court.
  • This line of cases (Mohini Traders, Ola Fleet Technologies, and its progeny) has become a settled ground for quashing ex parte Section 73/74 orders across UP GST litigation wherever the notice-tab defect is admitted or established.
  • Where the disputed demand is already secured or paid, courts prefer remand with a fresh notice over outright dismissal, balancing revenue interest against natural justice.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, Uttar Pradesh GST Act, 2017 – determination of tax not paid for reasons other than fraud or wilful misstatement.
  • GST Portal 'View Notices and Orders' vs 'Additional Notices and Orders' tabs – the administrative distinction whose misuse repeatedly vitiates service of Section 73 notices.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision favours the assessee. Both impugned orders were quashed and set aside, with the Department given liberty to issue a fresh, properly served notice and proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Writ Tax No. 2421 of 2025; M/S Harbansh Singh Bindra vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another; Coram: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri; Decided on 25.09.2025.

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.