Facts of the Case

M/S Raj Traders challenged an order dated 15.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act for the period July 2017 to March 2018, before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The dispute centred on due communication of the order — the petitioner claimed it did not appear under the 'view notices and orders' tab on the assessee's portal, but instead reflected only under the 'additional notice and orders' tab, preventing timely recourse within limitation. The petitioner relied on the earlier ruling in M/s Mohini Traders vs. State of U.P. addressing an identical portal-tab defect. The Division Bench decided the matter on 17.09.2025.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an order reflecting only under the 'additional notice and orders' tab, rather than the 'view notices and orders' tab, deprived the petitioner of timely knowledge and an effective remedy within limitation.
  2. Whether, independent of the portal-tab issue, there was a separate dispute as to whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee were actually displayed to and considered by the assessing officer.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The impugned order did not show up under the 'view notices and orders' tab on the assessee's portal and instead reflected only under the 'additional notice and orders' tab, so the petitioner could not seek an appropriate remedy within limitation.
  • Reliance was placed on M/s Mohini Traders vs. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation No. 2023:AHC:115008-DB), where an identical portal-tab defect was accepted by the Court as entitling the assessee to benefit of doubt.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Learned Standing Counsel, on written instructions, submitted that the assessing officer was not to blame for the error cited by the assessee, since the web portal available to the officer offers no option or choice as to which tab an uploaded order will reflect under for the assessee.
  • It was fairly conceded that, if at all, the underlying issue would have to be addressed by GST Network, the separate entity that designs, maintains and runs the web portal.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that no material existed to reject the petitioner's contention that the impugned order was not reflecting under the 'view notices and orders' tab, and that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt on this ground, consistent with the Court's approach in comparable portal-tab cases.
  • Noting a further dispute as to whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee had actually been displayed to and considered by the assessing officer, the Court found no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending, calling for a counter affidavit, or relegating the petitioner to the statutory remedy.
  • The writ petition was disposed of directing that the assessee treat the impugned order as the final notice and submit a written reply within two weeks, following which the assessing officer would issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice.
  • The petitioner undertook to appear on the date fixed, and the authority was directed to pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a further period of one month from service of that notice.

Important Clarification

  • Where an order reflects only under the less-visible 'additional notice and orders' tab of the GST portal, and the department itself cannot attribute the defect to the assessing officer (since the portal design is controlled by GST Network), the assessee is given the benefit of doubt rather than being non-suited on limitation.
  • Rather than remanding to the show cause stage or relegating the assessee to an appellate remedy, courts have crafted a pragmatic hybrid relief: treating the flawed order itself as a fresh notice, inviting a written reply, followed by a fresh reasoned order.
  • This approach avoids prolonging litigation through counter affidavits while still ensuring the taxpayer gets a genuine opportunity to be heard.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 — the substantive provision under which the demand was raised for July 2017 to March 2018.
  • Section 169, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 — prescribes valid modes of service, engaged through the portal-tab visibility defect.

Decision – In Favour of

Decided in favour of the assessee. The petitioner was given the benefit of doubt on the service defect, with the impugned order treated as a fresh notice and a structured reply-and-reasoned-order process directed.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case No.: Writ Tax No. 4653 of 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Praveen Kumar Giri
Date of Decision: 17.09.2025

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.