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

Facts

The petitioner, Asrar Ahmad Malik, had his GST registration 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 argues he was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period July 2017 to March 2018, which preceded an adjudication order dated December 21, 2023. The revenue has also not claimed that any physical or offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. Given these circumstances, the Court found no purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating 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 July 2017 - March 2018, as his GST registration had been cancelled on July 11, 2019, and was not revived. The Court found that the revenue had not established that any physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner prior to the adjudication order dated December 21, 2023. Therefore, the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard and to receive proper notice, had not been fulfilled. The Court set aside the adjudication order dated December 21, 2023. 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 July 2017 - March 2018, given that his GST registration was cancelled on July 11, 2019, and had not been revived. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner contended that since his registration was cancelled, he was not required to monitor the GST portal for notices, particularly as no physical notice was served. Revenue's Argument: The revenue did not dispute that the registration was cancelled and not revived. They also did not claim any physical notice was served. Their argument, implicitly, would be that notices issued through e-mode are valid even if registration is cancelled, provided the portal is the designated channel. 2. Whether the adjudication order dated December 21, 2023, passed without issuing physical/offline notice, violates the principles of natural justice. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that the failure to issue a physical or offline notice before passing the adjudication order violated the rules of natural justice. Revenue's Argument: The revenue did not present any argument on this point, nor did they claim any physical notice was served.