Facts of the Case

The petitioner, M/s Indian Marbels, challenged an order dated 28.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Mirzapur, under Section 74 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017, raising a demand against the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance was that the notices issued under Section 74 were uploaded on the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab of the GST Portal instead of the "Due/View Notices and Orders" tab, and consequently the petitioner remained unaware of the notice as well as the passing of the order, preventing it from appearing before the authority or challenging the order within limitation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether uploading a Section 74 notice and order on the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab rather than the principal notices tab amounts to inadequate communication.
  2. What consequential relief follows once the order is set aside on this ground.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The notice and order were placed under a portal tab that an ordinary registered person would not routinely check, effectively denying communication and depriving the petitioner of any opportunity to reply or to challenge the order in time.
  • The identical portal-design defect had already been considered and remedied by a coordinate Bench in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. (Writ Tax No. 855 of 2024), which held the assessee entitled to the benefit of doubt in such circumstances.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the State did not dispute that the notice and order were uploaded on the "Additional Notices and Orders" tab instead of the main tab, and fairly conceded that the facts were squarely covered by the Ola Fleet Technologies decision.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Division Bench reiterated its holding in Ola Fleet Technologies that where the GST portal's own architecture places an order under the wrong tab, the assessee deserves the benefit of doubt since neither the assessee nor the assessing officer controls how the portal displays documents, and that this is properly an issue for the GST Network to address.
  • Applying this precedent, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashing and setting aside the Section 74 order dated 28.12.2023 in its entirety.
  • The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen clear days to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law, and to proceed further only on that basis.

Important Clarification

  • Where the GST portal itself places show cause notices or orders under "Additional Notices and Orders" instead of the primary notices tab, courts extend the benefit of doubt to the assessee since this is a systemic portal-design issue attributable to GSTN, not to either party.
  • Such technical service defects justify quashing the order and issuing a fresh notice with adequate clear days, rather than relegating the assessee to a now time-barred statutory appeal, even in Section 74 (fraud/suppression) matters.

Sections Involved

  • Section 74, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 – determination of tax involving fraud, wilful misstatement or suppression.
  • GST common portal notice-service architecture under Rule 142, CGST Rules, 2017 – governs upload of notices and orders to the assessee's dashboard.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the assessee — the writ petition was allowed and the impugned demand order quashed in full, with a fresh notice directed.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; WRIT TAX No. 4900 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.; Date: 24.09.2025.

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.