Facts of the Case

M/s Gomdhari, through its proprietor Mukesh Kumar Srivastava, challenged an order dated 28.02.2024 passed under Section 73 of the GST Act, 2017 and the appellate order dated 22.05.2025 dismissing its first appeal as being beyond limitation. The petitioner's grievance was that no date for hearing was ever fixed or intimated to it in an accessible manner — the notice of hearing had instead been uploaded only on the GST portal's 'additional tab', a location the petitioner had no reason or practical occasion to check, so that the demand crystallised without the petitioner ever engaging with the proceedings on merits.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether an order can stand where the notice of hearing was uploaded on the 'additional notices' tab of the GST portal instead of the standard notices tab, leaving the assessee unaware of the proceedings.

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The notice of hearing was placed only under the 'additional tab' of the GST portal, which is not the tab an assessee ordinarily monitors, and could not be noticed.
  • The identical issue stood decided in the assessee's favour in Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited v. State of U.P.

Respondent's Arguments

  • No separate defence was pressed on this specific point beyond the standing counsel's appearance; the matter was disposed of on the petitioner's sole ground.

Court Order / Findings

  • The Court accepted that the issue was squarely covered by Ola Fleet Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
  • Both the original order dated 28.02.2024 and the limitation-based appellate dismissal dated 22.05.2025 were quashed.
  • The matter was remanded to the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

Important Clarification

  • Notices or orders uploaded only under the GST portal's 'additional notices and orders' tab, rather than the standard 'view notices and orders' tab that assessees typically monitor, are treated as effectively not communicated, entitling the assessee to a benefit of doubt and a fresh opportunity.
  • This benefit of doubt is extended even where the resulting first appeal is itself dismissed as time-barred, since the underlying limitation period never meaningfully began to run against an assessee who was never properly put on notice in the first place.

Sections Involved

  • Section 73 of the CGST/UPGST Act, 2017 — determination of tax not paid/short paid.

Decision – In Favour of

In favour of the Assessee — both the demand order and the limitation-based appellate dismissal were quashed and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing.

Case Details

Court: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench — Case No.: Writ Tax No. 1342 of 2025 — Coram: Hon'ble Justice Manish Kumar — Date of Order: 19 November 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.