M/S. Ram Trading Company vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. Ram Trading Company, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer, State Taxes, Najibabad, Bijnor, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 31.05.2021, and it claims no business was conducted thereafter. A show cause notice was allegedly uploaded on the GST portal, leading to the impugned order. The petitioner contended that after registration cancellation, they were not obligated to check the GST portal, and any notice should have been served through alternative means.

Held

The Court held that there was a violation of the principle of natural justice. It found that once a petitioner's GST registration is cancelled, they are not obligated to check the GST portal for notices. The Court agreed with the principle laid down by a coordinate bench in M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others, which stated that the mode of service of any show cause notice must be through alternative means to the petitioner. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.12.2023 passed by the Commercial Tax Officer was quashed and set aside. The Court directed the department to issue a proper notice to the petitioner and proceed in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of with this direction.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of a show cause notice uploaded on the GST portal is a valid mode of service upon a petitioner whose GST registration has been cancelled, and who claims no subsequent business activity, under Section 73 of the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017? Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner argued that once their GST registration was cancelled, they were no longer obligated to monitor the GST portal. They contended that the mode of service for any show cause notice must be through alternative means to reach them directly. The petitioner relied on the principle enunciated in the case of M/s Katyal Industries v. State of U.P. and others. Respondent's Argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent (State of U.P. and others).