M/S Chaudhary Auto Agency vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Chaudhary Auto Agency, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging an order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Tax, Sector-17, Agra, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 03.06.2021, and thereafter, no business was conducted. 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 service of 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 enunciated 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 check the GST portal. The mode of service of any show cause notice must be through alternative means to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 18.04.2024 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 issue was expressly left undecided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the uploaded show cause notice on the GST portal constitutes proper service of notice to the petitioner, especially after the cancellation of their GST registration, thereby adhering to the principles of natural justice? Petitioner's Contention: 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 should have been through alternative means directly to the petitioner. The petitioner relied on the coordinate Bench's decision in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others. Respondent's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (State of Uttar Pradesh and others).