Facts of the Case

M/S Manik Pharma challenged orders dated 23.04.2024 and 14.12.2023 passed under Section 73 of the UP GST Act by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Bareilly, creating a demand for the financial year 2018-19. The petitioner's grievance was that the underlying notices had been uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab of the GST portal, rather than the more prominent 'Due Notices and Orders' tab, leaving it unaware of the notice and order, and consequently unable to challenge them within limitation.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether a GST demand order is sustainable where the preceding notices were placed on the less-visible 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab instead of the 'Due Notices and Orders' tab.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The notices were uploaded on the 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab, not the tab an assessee ordinarily checks, so the petitioner remained genuinely unaware of the proceedings.
  • Relied on the Court's own ruling 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 relief on an identical portal-tab issue.

Respondent's Arguments

  • Based on the material on record, the Department did not dispute that the notices and orders were 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

  • Following Ola Fleet Technologies, where a coordinate bench had held the assessee is entitled to a 'benefit of doubt' when there is no material to reject the contention that the order did not reflect under the 'view notices and orders' tab, and had noted that the assessing officer's web portal offers no choice over which tab an order appears under (a technical issue attributable to GSTN, not the officer), the Court applied the same reasoning here.
  • Since the issue was squarely covered, the writ petition was allowed and the orders dated 23.04.2024 and 14.12.2023 were quashed and set aside.
  • The Assessing Officer was directed to issue a fresh notice with at least fifteen days' clear notice to the petitioner in the manner prescribed by law, with further proceedings to follow that fresh notice.

Important Clarification

  • A genuine, unrebutted contention that a GST notice/order appeared only under the portal's 'Additional Notices and Orders' tab (rather than the more visible 'Due Notices and Orders' tab) entitles the assessee to a benefit of doubt and a fresh notice, since this is a portal/GSTN design issue outside the officer's control.
  • Relief in such cases is calibrated as a fresh, clear 15-day notice rather than an outright closure of proceedings, since the underlying tax dispute survives.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73, UP GST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not involving fraud or suppression.
  • Section 169, CGST Act, 2017 — modes of service of notices, including portal display under various tabs.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — the demand orders are quashed on the portal-tab benefit-of-doubt ground, with a fresh 15-day clear notice to follow.

Case Details

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC:144492-DB; Writ Tax No. 2771 of 2025; Coram: Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J. and Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri, J.; Order dated 21.08.2025.

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.