Facts of the Case

M/S Ganpati Steel Lko., through its partner, challenged an order dated 08.04.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, and the appellate order dated 28.06.2025 dismissing its appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that the notice of hearing had not been reflected under the ordinary tabs on the GST portal but was instead placed under the 'additional tab', so the scheduled dates could not be noticed and no opportunity to be heard was effectively availed. The Standing Counsel for the State was unable to controvert this factual position.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a Section 73 order passed pursuant to a hearing notice uploaded only on the GST portal's 'additional tab' — and consequently unnoticed by the assessee — is sustainable.
  2. Whether the matter falls within the ambit of the precedent laid down in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited vs. State of U.P.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The notice of hearing was placed on the 'additional tab' of the GST portal rather than the regular notices tab, so the petitioner could not notice the scheduled dates and effectively lost the opportunity to respond.
  • This factual scenario was identical to that considered and decided in the petitioner's favour by the Court in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited vs. State of U.P. & 2 Ors. (Writ Tax No.855 of 2024).

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Standing Counsel for the State was not in a position to controvert the petitioner's contention regarding the notice being placed under the additional tab.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court found that the impugned order was passed without any proper opportunity of hearing, since the hearing notice had not been placed where the assessee could reasonably be expected to notice it.
  • Following the law explained in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited, the Court allowed the petition and quashed both the order dated 08.04.2024 and the appellate order dated 28.06.2025.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after affording the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Where a GST hearing notice is uploaded only under a portal tab that is not part of the regular notices view, and the department cannot controvert this fact, the resulting order — and any appellate dismissal on limitation grounds flowing from it — will be quashed on natural-justice grounds.
  • The Allahabad High Court has treated this 'additional tab' service defect as a recurring, readily identifiable ground warranting summary relief once the Ola Fleet Technologies precedent is invoked and not disputed by the Department.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, GST Act, 2017 — demand provision under which the original order was passed.
  • Section 107, GST Act, 2017 — appellate provision under which the appeal was earlier dismissed as time-barred.

Decision – In Favour of

The decision is in favour of the assessee (Ganpati Steel). Both the original demand order and the appellate dismissal were quashed, with the matter remanded for a fresh hearing.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Writ Tax No. 613 of 2025 (Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:39621); Coram: Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.; Order dated 11.7.2025.

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.