M/S Pradeep Verma Traders Thru.Proprietor Anil Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Tax And Registration Civil Sectt. Lko. And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive e-mode notices for the period April 2020 to March 2021, as its GST registration had been cancelled on December 16, 2020, and was not revived. The revenue did not contend otherwise, nor did it claim to have issued any physical/offline notice to the petitioner before passing the adjudication order dated February 18, 2025. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. Therefore, the Court set aside the order dated February 18, 2025. The petitioner was directed to treat the set-aside order as a notice and submit its final reply within four weeks. Upon compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pradeep Verma Traders, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017, cancelled on December 16, 2020. The revenue did not contend that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argued it was not obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode notices for the period April 2020 to March 2021, preceding an adjudication order dated February 18, 2025. The revenue also did not claim that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The High Court noted that the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode notices for the period April 2020 to March 2021, given that its GST registration was cancelled on December 16, 2020, and not revived, thereby turning on the principles of natural justice and the requirements for issuing notices under the UPGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled and not revived, it was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive e-mode notices. The revenue's failure to issue any physical/offline notice before passing the adjudication order violated the principles of natural justice. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not dispute that the registration was cancelled and not revived. It also did not claim to have issued any physical/offline notice to the petitioner prior to the impugned order. The judgment records no specific argument from the revenue regarding the petitioner's obligation to check the portal in this scenario.