Deen Dayal Upadhyay vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, Deen Dayal Upadhyay, had his GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on October 12, 2019. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner was not obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode show cause notices for the period April 2019 - March 2020, preceding an adjudication order dated August 29, 2024. The revenue has also not asserted 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 adjudication order dated August 29, 2024, was in violation of the principles of natural justice. The reasoning was that the petitioner's GST registration had been cancelled on October 12, 2019, and there was no assertion from the revenue that it had been revived or that the petitioner had sought revival. Consequently, the petitioner was not obliged to check the GST portal for e-mode show cause notices. Moreover, the revenue did not claim to have issued any physical/offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer whose registration is cancelled and who has not sought revival thereof cannot be expected to receive notices through e-mode on the GST portal, and the absence of physical notice violates natural justice. The Court set aside the order dated August 29, 2024, and directed the petitioner to submit a reply to the show cause notice within four weeks. Upon compliance, a fresh order was to be passed after affording a personal hearing, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the adjudication order dated August 29, 2024, passed by the respondent authority, is vitiated due to non-compliance with the principles of natural justice, specifically regarding the issuance and service of show cause notices, in light of the petitioner's cancelled GST registration? (Section 75 of the CGST Act, 2017, and principles of natural justice). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since his GST registration was cancelled on October 12, 2019, and was not revived, he was not required to monitor the GST portal for e-mode show cause notices. Furthermore, no physical or offline notice was served on him before the adjudication order was passed. Therefore, the principles of natural justice were violated. Respondent's Contention: The respondent (State of U.P. and Another) did not dispute the cancellation of the petitioner's registration or the lack of physical notice. Their argument, implied by the Court's observation, did not counter the petitioner's claim of non-service of notice.