Facts of the Case

The petitioner challenged an order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, State Tax, Varanasi, under Section 73 of the UPGST Act, 2017, creating a demand for the financial year 2018-19. It was submitted that the notice under Section 73 had been uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal instead of the primary 'View Notices and Orders' tab, so the petitioner remained unaware of the notice and the subsequent order until it was too late to respond within limitation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether service of a Section 73 show cause notice by uploading it on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, rather than the 'View Notices and Orders' tab, of the GST portal constitutes effective service sufficient to bind the assessee to the limitation period.
  2. Whether the resultant demand order should be quashed and a fresh opportunity granted.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The notice and order were uploaded under the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, a placement the assessee is not ordinarily expected to monitor, depriving it of a real opportunity to respond within time.
  • The issue is squarely covered by the coordinate Bench decision in Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P. & 2 others (Writ Tax No.855 of 2024, decided 22.07.2024), which granted the benefit of doubt in an identical situation and remanded the matter.

Respondent's Arguments

  • The Department, based on the material on record, did not dispute the fact that the notice and order had been uploaded on 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.

Court Order / Findings

  • Relying on Ola Fleet Technologies, the Court noted that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of doubt where the impugned order does not appear under the tab an assessee would normally check, and that no material existed to dispute this claim.
  • The writ petition was allowed and the order dated 08.04.2024 was quashed and set aside.
  • The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice, giving at least fifteen days' clear notice, in accordance with law, and to proceed further based on that fresh notice.

Important Clarification

  • Where a Section 73 show cause notice or order under the UPGST/CGST Act is uploaded on the GST common portal's 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab rather than the primary 'View/Due Notices and Orders' tab that assessees ordinarily monitor, the assessee is entitled to a benefit of doubt regarding non-service, and courts will quash the consequent demand order.
  • The remedy granted is not an outright cancellation of the department's power to demand tax but a fresh, properly served notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice before any subsequent order.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid, short paid or erroneously refunded, in non-fraud cases.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 — prescribes the modes of service of notices, orders and other communications, including service through the common portal.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee. The impugned order was quashed with a direction for a fresh, properly notified adjudication.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; WRIT TAX No.4665 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Hon'ble Justice Praveen Kumar Giri; Date of Order: 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.