Allahabad HC Quashes GST Orders Due to Improper Notice Service; Sends Case Back to AO for Fresh Consideration:

Allahabad HC Quashes GST Orders Due to Improper Notice Service; Sends Case Back to AO for Fresh Consideration Numerous times, the GST department uploads a demand notice merely on an additional tab of the portal. Now, the question raised is, is it a fair final demand order even if the petitioner did not get the opportunity to present his/her side? Here, in this case too, the initial demand notice was uploaded in a hard-to-find section of the portal; therefore, the petitioner did not get a chance to respond, and when they tried to appeal the tax order, the appeal was rejected because it was late.

Also Read

ITAT Delhi Quashes Reassessment Proceedings Based on Suspicion

The present writ petition (Writ Tax No. 597 of 2025) is being filed by a company named M/S Airosa International (petitioner) in the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, against the State of Uttar Pradesh (respondent). The company here is challenging two orders, one passed on 12.08.2024 under Section 73 of the GST Act and the other on 08.04.2025, whereby the petitioner’s appeal against the earlier order was dismissed (the reason for dismissal was that the appeal was filed late, beyond the time limit allowed under the law). On the date of hearing, i.e., July 17, 2025, the petitioner submitted a supplementary affidavit. The company argued that they were not heard before the issuance of the final order; additionally, the allegedly sent Show Cause Notice (SCN) was merely uploaded on the “additional tab” on the GST portal; hence, they were unaware of the notice and did not file a timely reply to it. The company referred to a recent judgement, titled Ola Fleet Technologies Private Limited vs State of U.P., related to the same situation where an SCN notice was uploaded on a hard-to-find section of the portal, and the court ruled in favour of the petitioner.

Also Read

Relief for Honest Salaried Taxpayer: ITAT Pune Quashes Penalty Imposed Due to Tax Consultant’s Fraud

The respondent could not deny or counter these facts, especially about how the notice was served. Therefore, the High Court accepted the arguments served by the petitioner and held that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to be heard, which is a basic legal right. The case of Ola Fleet Technologies applies here, too, because the same issue of notice being poorly served was present. Based on these facts, the court quashed the GST tax order dated 12.08.2024 and the order dated 08.04.2025. Remanded the case back to the GST Assessing Officer, instructing them to reconsider the case freshly and give the petitioner a proper hearing, and then pass a new order as per the law, after considering the petitioner’s side.