M/S Super Garments vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Super Garments, had its GST registration cancelled on December 19, 2018, effective the same date. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argues it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period April 2018 to March 2019, which preceded an adjudication order dated April 6, 2024. The revenue has also not claimed to have issued any physical or offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. 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 April 2018 - March 2019, as its GST registration had been cancelled on December 19, 2018, and was not revived. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled because no physical/offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the adjudication order dated April 6, 2024. Therefore, the Court set aside the adjudication order. The ratio decidendi is that a taxpayer whose registration is cancelled and not revived is not expected to check the GST portal for electronic notices, and principles of natural justice mandate proper notice, either physical or electronic, to the taxpayer's last known address or through a recognized communication channel. The Court directed the petitioner to submit its reply to the show cause notice within four weeks and, subject to compliance, a fresh order is to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously, 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 April 2018 - March 2019, given that its GST registration was cancelled on December 19, 2018, and not revived, as per Section 29 of the CGST Act, 2017 and relevant rules? Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled and not revived, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for electronic notices. The petitioner also asserted that no physical notice was served. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of registration or the lack of physical notice. Their argument, implied by the issuance of the adjudication order, was that notices were issued electronically, and the petitioner should have been aware or checked the portal.