M/S R K Traders vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s R K Traders, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes, Sector-1, Hasanpur, Amroha, under Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled on 21.10.2022, and no business was conducted thereafter. A show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal, followed by the impugned order. The petitioner contended that after registration cancellation, they were not obligated to check the GST portal, and the mode of service of any notice should have been through alternative means.

Held

The Court held that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Court agreed with the principle laid down by a coordinate Bench in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others. The reasoning was that once a petitioner's GST registration is cancelled, they are not obligated to continuously check the GST portal. The proper mode of service for any show cause notice must be through alternative means directly communicated to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner was quashed and set aside. The department was granted liberty to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with the law. No other issues were expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of a show cause notice uploaded on the GST portal is a valid mode of service to a petitioner whose GST registration has been cancelled, thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice, particularly in light of Section 74 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? The petitioner argued that once their GST registration was cancelled, they were no longer obligated to monitor the GST portal for notices. They contended that the mode of service for any show cause notice must be through alternative means directly communicated to them. The petitioner relied on the principle enunciated in the case of M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others. The respondent (State) did not record any specific arguments regarding the mode of service or the validity of the notice in the judgment.