M/S Radhey Krishna Medical vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/S Radhey Krishna Medical, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017, cancelled on January 21, 2021, effective from January 13, 2021. The registration was not revived, nor was revival sought. The revenue did not contend that the petitioner was obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices for the periods 2017-18 and 2019-20, which preceded the adjudication orders dated April 20, 2022, February 13, 2023, and August 17, 2024. Crucially, the revenue also did not claim that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before these orders were passed. The High Court found that the rules of natural justice were not fulfilled.

Held

The Court held that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled, and there was no assertion by the revenue that the petitioner was obligated to monitor the GST portal for notices, nor was any physical or offline notice served. Consequently, the adjudication orders dated 20.04.2022, 13.02.2023, and 17.08.2024 were set aside. The Court directed that the petitioner could treat the impugned orders themselves as notices and submit a final reply within four weeks. Following this, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously, preferably within three months. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer whose registration is cancelled and who has not sought revival must be provided with adequate notice, either physical or offline, before any adverse adjudication orders are passed against them, to uphold the principles of natural justice.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication orders dated 20.04.2022, 13.02.2023, and 17.08.2024 are vitiated due to a violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the lack of proper notice to the petitioner whose GST registration had been cancelled? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since their GST registration was cancelled and not revived, they were not obligated to check the GST portal for notices. Furthermore, no physical or offline notice was served upon them prior to the passing of the impugned adjudication orders. This failure to provide adequate notice violates the principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute that the petitioner's registration was cancelled and not revived. They also did not claim that any physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned orders were passed. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue regarding the validity of the notices or the adherence to natural justice principles.