The Madras High Court, in the case of East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner [W.P. No. 26457 of 2023 dated September 11, 2023], granted the writ petition, overturning the Impugned Order.
The Court directed the matter back to the Appellate Authority, emphasizing that the Petitioner hadn’t received a fair chance due to a notice issued in an alternative option on the GST Portal dashboard that went unnoticed.
Additionally, the High Court instructed the Revenue Department to resolve the confusion caused by the placement of information in the dashboard’s menu, specifically addressing the issue of having both “View Additional Notices and Orders” and “View Notices and Orders” drop-down menus, which led to miscommunication in issuing notices and orders in different formats since the platform’s inception.
Facts About East Coast Constructions & Industries Ltd
East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. (“the Petitioner”) aggrieved by the Assessment Order dated May 8, 2023, (“the Impugned Order”) passed via the Revenue Department (“the Respondent”) as the applicant does not answer to the notices issued vide Form GST DRC-01A and form GST DRC-01.
Dissatisfaction with the Impugned Order, the Petitioner lodged a writ petition, arguing that they had overlooked notices in Form GST DRC-01A and Form GST DRC-01.
Previously, under the GST’s inception, these notifications were accessible under “View Notices and Orders.” However, the Respondent has recently shifted the hosting of notices and communications to the section labelled “View Additional Notices and Orders.”
Technical Issues on the GST Portal
Is the order obligated to be set aside because of a technical problem in the GST portal?
Read Also:- Solved! Common GST Registration Problems on the GST Portal
Madras High Court Judgement
The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of W.P. No. 26457 of 2023 held as under:
- Noting that the Petitioner deserves an opportunity to rectify the discrepancy highlighted between form GSTR-1, form GSTR-3B, and form ASMT-10.
- Expressing the view that directing the Petitioner to approach the Respondent Appellate Authority isn’t suitable given the complexity of the matter.
- Decreed that the Impugned Order be overturned and the case be returned to the Respondent authority for reevaluation based on its merits in compliance with the law within three months.
- Ordered the Respondent authority to address the issues arising from the arrangement of information in the Dashboard’s menu, specifically concerning the placement of data in “View Additional Notices and Orders” alongside the pre-existing “View Notices and Orders” drop-down menu, which has traditionally been used for disseminating notices in different formats and orders.
Our Comments
Lately, the Allahabad High Court, in the matter of Harbir Singh Contractor v. Union of India and Ors. [Writ Tax No. 454 of 2020 dated October 26, 2023], granted the writ petition, affirming the entitlement of the Petitioner to seek redressal when an Assessee suffers due to unintended machine errors.
The Court noted that procedural laws rely on rules designed to function efficiently through automated processes.
| Case Title | East Coast Constructions and Industries Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner |
| Citation | W.P.No.26457 of 2023 W.M.P.Nos.25865 and 25867 of 2023 |
| Date | 11.09.2023 |
| For Petitioner | Mr.Joseph Prabakar |
| For Respondent | Mr.C.Harsharaj Additional Government Pleader |
| Madras High Court | Read Order |
