M/S Shaorya Constructions Proprietorship Thru. Proprietor,Mr.Mukesh Yadav Alias Mukesh Kumar Yadav vs. Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) Lko. Zone And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shaorya Constructions, registered under the Uttar Pradesh Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, received a notice on August 8, 2023, proposing cancellation of registration due to no business activity. An order dated September 28, 2023, cancelled the registration under Section 29 of the Act. The petitioner applied for revocation, leading to a notice dated June 1, 2024, to which the petitioner did not respond. The petitioner claimed lack of knowledge but acknowledged the notice was uploaded on the portal under Section 169 of the Act. This resulted in an order dated June 22, 2024, rejecting the revocation application. The petitioner sought one opportunity to respond to the notice dated June 1, 2024.

Held

The Court quashed the order dated June 22, 2024, rejecting the petitioner's revocation application. The Court directed the petitioner to respond to the notice dated June 1, 2024, within 15 days from the date of the order. If the petitioner submits a response within this period, the respondent No. 2 shall consider it and pass a fresh decision on the revocation application. If no response is submitted, the revocation application will stand dismissed without further proceedings. To facilitate the response, the Court directed that either the facility to respond should be made available on the portal or the offline response should be received and uploaded by respondent No. 2. The Court noted that the petitioner has knowledge of the notice dated June 1, 2024, as it was annexed to the petition, thus no fresh notice is required. The ratio decidendi is that procedural fairness requires an opportunity to be heard, especially when a party claims lack of knowledge of a notice, even if served through a statutory mode, and the Court can intervene to ensure such an opportunity is provided.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner should be granted an opportunity to respond to the notice dated June 1, 2024, for the purpose of revoking the cancellation of GST registration, considering the petitioner's claim of lack of knowledge despite the notice being uploaded on the portal. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that they should be given one opportunity to respond to the notice dated June 1, 2024, as they claim to have had no knowledge of it, which led to the rejection of their revocation application. They sought to address the grounds raised in the notice. Respondent's contention: The respondent (Commissioner of Goods and Services Tax and another) did not explicitly record arguments in the judgment. However, their action of issuing the order rejecting the revocation application implies reliance on the petitioner's failure to respond to the notice dated June 1, 2024, which was served via portal upload as per Section 169 of the Act.