Sapna Gupta vs. State Of U.P And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Sapna Gupta, challenges an order dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, Sector-1, State Tax, Kanpur. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 16.04.2022, after which no business was conducted. A show cause notice was uploaded on the GST portal, and the petitioner filed a reply. The impugned order was passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner became aware of this order only on 11.07.2025, when their banker received a notice in Form GST DRC-13 dated 21.06.2025. The petitioner contends that once registration is cancelled, they are not obligated to check the GST portal, and service of orders must be through alternative means.

Held

The Court held that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was that once a taxpayer's GST registration is cancelled, they are no longer obligated to regularly check the GST portal for communications. The Court found that the mode of service of any order must be through alternative means to the petitioner in such circumstances. The Court agreed with the principle laid down by a coordinate Bench in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30.01.2023, passed by the respondent No.2, 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 impugned order dated 30.01.2023, passed under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, is vitiated by a violation of the principles of natural justice due to improper service of notice, considering the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled prior to the issuance of the show cause notice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that after the cancellation of their GST registration on 16.04.2022, they were not obligated to monitor the GST portal. They contended that the service of the show cause notice solely through the GST portal was inadequate and violated the principles of natural justice, as they only became aware of the impugned order much later through a notice to their banker. They relied on the principle enunciated in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:23697-DB. Respondent's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent.