Ms Gajendra Singh Cont vs. Assistant Commissioner

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 the legislative intent behind Section 169 is to ensure effective communication, and making a notice available on the portal is not the exclusive method. Imposing a duty on a non-registered person to monitor the portal is not contemplated by law. Furthermore, the Court found that the adjudication order violated Section 75(4) of the CGST Act by failing to provide an opportunity of personal hearing, which is a mandatory requirement under the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court relied on the Allahabad High Court's judgment in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes and its own previous order in M/s Jaipal Singh vs. Commissioner, State Goods and Services Tax Commissionerate. The impugned adjudication order dated 28.08.2024 was quashed. The petitioner was granted liberty to file a reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks, after which the respondent-Department was to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring a personal hearing for the petitioner as per Section 75(4).

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Gajendra Singh Cont., filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 25.04.2024 and an adjudication order dated 28.08.2024, both passed under Section 73 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. The petitioner's GST registration was cancelled on 20.02.2020. The petitioner argued that after cancellation of registration, they were not expected to monitor the GST portal, and notices should have been served through alternative modes. The revenue did not dispute this submission. The court noted that the facts were not in dispute and the case was covered by previous judgments.

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 adjudication order suffers from a violation of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which mandates an opportunity of personal hearing? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that after the cancellation of their GST registration on 20.02.2020, they were not obligated to check the GST portal, and service of notices should have been effected through alternative methods. They relied on judgments from the Allahabad High Court, specifically M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and others, which held that portal-based service alone is not sufficient when registration is cancelled, and that the department must ensure effective communication. They also argued that the principle of audi alteram partem, as enshrined in Section 75(4), was violated. Revenue's arguments: The learned counsel for the revenue did not dispute the petitioner's submissions.