M/S Trishul Asphalts Products vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Trishul Asphalts Products, challenged the cancellation of its GST registration certificate. The primary contention was that the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing. The respondents, including the Commissioner of Rajasthan State Goods And Services Tax Department and the Deputy Commissioner, Circle-B, Bharatpur, had issued a show cause notice. The petitioner argued that this notice was not properly served. However, the court noted that the show cause notice was uploaded on the GST Portal, which the petitioner admitted as a valid mode of communication. No other grounds for challenging the cancellation were raised by the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that the petition lacked merit and was dismissed. The primary reason for dismissal was that the petitioner's sole ground for challenging the cancellation of registration was the non-service of the show cause notice. The Court found that a show cause notice was indeed issued and uploaded on the GST Portal. The petitioner themselves admitted that uploading on the GST Portal is a recognized mode of communication. Therefore, it could not be argued that the notice was not served, as the petitioner was aware of its existence through the portal. Since no other grounds were raised by the petitioner, the Court found no reason to interfere with the cancellation. The ratio decidendi is that uploading a show cause notice on the GST portal constitutes valid service, and if this is the only ground of challenge and it is found to be validly served, the petition will be dismissed. The Court, however, clarified that this order would not prevent the petitioner from seeking fresh registration after depositing the tax dues in accordance with the law.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration certificate is invalid due to the alleged non-affordance of an opportunity of hearing, specifically concerning the service of the show cause notice? (Question of law and fact, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural compliance under GST law). Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that they were not given a proper opportunity of hearing because the show cause notice was not effectively served. While acknowledging that uploading on the GST portal is a mode of communication, the petitioner's core grievance was the lack of actual hearing or effective notice. Revenue's argument: The respondents argued that a show cause notice was duly issued and uploaded on the GST Portal. They contended that uploading the notice on the portal constitutes valid service, thereby informing the petitioner of the proceedings and providing an opportunity to respond. The respondents did not raise any other specific arguments beyond the validity of the notice service.