Asrar Ahamad Malik vs. State Of U.P.And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Asrar Ahamad Malik, had his GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on July 11, 2019. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argued he was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period April 2018 - March 2019, which preceded an adjudication order dated April 30, 2024. The revenue also did not claim to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The High Court noted these peculiar facts and deemed it unnecessary to keep the petition pending or relegate the petitioner to an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period April 2018 - March 2019, as his GST registration had been cancelled on July 11, 2019, and was not revived. The revenue did not dispute this fact nor did they claim to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner prior to the adjudication order dated April 30, 2024. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. Therefore, the adjudication order dated April 30, 2024, was set aside. The petitioner was granted four weeks to submit a reply to the show cause notice. Following this, a fresh order was to be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously and preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period April 2018 - March 2019, given that his GST registration was cancelled on July 11, 2019, and had not been revived. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that since his registration was cancelled prior to the issuance of the show cause notices and adjudication order, he was not obliged to monitor the GST portal for any electronic notices. He relied on the principle of natural justice, asserting that no proper notice was served. Revenue's contention: The revenue did not contend that the petitioner's registration was revived. They also did not claim to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order dated April 30, 2024. The judgment does not record any specific argument from the revenue regarding the petitioner's obligation to check the portal.