Winstrol Petrochemicals PVT. LTD vs. Commissioner, State GST

Held

The Court held that the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal, when the petitioner's registration had been cancelled, did not constitute valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Court reasoned that Section 169 prescribes multiple modes of service, and making a notice available on the common portal is not the exclusive method. The Department has a duty to ensure effective service. In this case, the petitioner's registration was cancelled prior to the notice, and they were not obligated to monitor the portal. Insisting on portal-based service alone imposed a duty on a non-registered person, which is not contemplated by law. Therefore, the statutory requirement of service under Section 169 was not satisfied. Consequently, the impugned order, passed without valid service and without affording a proper opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) (principle of audi alteram partem), was vitiated. The Court quashed the impugned order and granted liberty to the Revenue to issue a fresh notice and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law, ensuring a personal hearing if desired by the petitioner.

Facts

The petitioner, Winstrol Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order dated March 21, 2024, passed under Section 73(9) of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, for the financial year 2018-19. This order imposed a tax liability of ₹1,55,282.00, interest of ₹1,52,472.02, and penalty of ₹15,528.20. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled effective January 1, 2019. The petitioner contended that the show cause notice and subsequent order were passed without proper service, as the notice was only uploaded on the GST portal after registration cancellation. The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned order and notice, a direction for re-decision with a personal hearing, and de-freezing of its bank account.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal, in circumstances where the petitioner's registration stood cancelled, constitutes valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act? 2. Whether the impugned order suffers from a violation of the statutory mandate under Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, requiring an opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that after GST registration cancellation, notices should have been served through alternative modes, not solely by uploading on the portal, as the firm was not expected to monitor the portal. Reliance was placed on the judgment in M/s Nulife Medical Store vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Service Tax, wherein it was held that after registration cancellation, service must be effected through alternative modes. Revenue's Arguments: The learned counsel for the revenue did not dispute that the show cause notice was served by uploading it on the GST portal and not by any other mode.