Facts of the Case: M/S Elixir Infra Corporation challenged an order dated 24.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, in Form GST DRC-07, raising a demand of Rs. 10,77,365.74 with interest and penalty for financial year 2017-18, contending that the underlying Show Cause Notice had been uploaded only on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST Portal, of which the petitioner remained unaware, resulting in a complete denial of hearing and an unfair adjudication. The petitioner also sought the benefit of Section 75(4) of the GST Act.

Issues Involved:

  1. Whether the petitioner's claim that the impugned order did not reflect under the visible 'Notices and Orders' tab could be rejected in the absence of contrary material.
  2. What relief is appropriate where the entire disputed amount is already lying in deposit with the State Government.

Petitioner's Arguments:

  • Notices under Section 73 were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, and the petitioner, being unaware, could neither appear before the authority nor challenge the order within limitation, relying on the earlier decision in M/s Mohini Traders v. State of U.P. (2023:AHC:115008-DB).

Respondent's Arguments:

  • The Standing Counsel, on instructions, submitted that the assessing officer was not to blame for the manner of upload, since the web portal gave the officer no option or choice as to which tab a reply/order would reflect under — if any issue existed, it lay with the GST Network, a separate body that designs and maintains the portal.

Court Order / Findings:

  • The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt, since no material existed to reject its contention that the impugned order did not reflect under the visible "view notices and orders" tab, and a further dispute also existed as to whether all replies and annexures filed by the assessee had actually been displayed to and considered by the assessing officer.
  • Since the entire disputed amount was already lying in deposit with the State Government, leaving no outstanding demand, the Court found no useful purpose in 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 impugned order be treated as the final notice, with the petitioner to submit a written reply within two weeks, following which the assessing officer would issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice, and pass a reasoned, speaking order within a further month.

Important Clarification:

  • Where there is no material to rebut an assessee's claim that a GST order did not appear under the visible notices tab on the portal, and the disputed tax amount is already secured with the Department, courts may bypass the ordinary route of quashing-and-remanding or relegating to appeal, and instead convert the existing order into a fresh notice with a structured timeline for reply, hearing and a speaking order.

Sections Involved:

  • Section 73, GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax liability.
  • Section 75(4), GST Act, 2017 — opportunity of personal hearing.

Decision – In Favour of: Assessee.

Case Details: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Writ Tax No. 2798 of 2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:116790-DB; Coram: Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.; Order Date: 18.7.2025.

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.