Raj Shekhar Pandey vs. State Tax Officer

Held

The Court held that the facts of the present case are squarely covered by the law laid down in the Allahabad High Court's judgment in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes. The Court agreed that after the cancellation of GST registration, the petitioner was not expected to monitor the GST portal, and service of notice exclusively through the portal was not valid service under Section 169 of the CGST Act. The Court found that the Department failed to effect valid service of the notices, thus not satisfying the statutory requirement. Furthermore, the Court acknowledged the mandate of Section 75(4) of the CGST Act, which requires an opportunity of personal hearing, especially when an adverse decision is contemplated. The Court quashed the impugned order dated 13.01.2025. It granted liberty to the petitioner to file a reply to the show-cause notice within two weeks, after which the respondent-Department is to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, ensuring a personal hearing for the petitioner as per Section 75(4).

Facts

The petitioner, Raj Shekhar Pandey, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 13.01.2025 passed under Section 37 of the Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, along with a show-cause notice dated 16.11.2024. The respondent is the State Tax Officer. The petitioner's GST registration had been surrendered/cancelled on 29.04.2023. The Revenue admitted that the proceedings were initiated after the cancellation of the petitioner's GST registration. The petitioner argued that after cancellation, he was not expected to monitor the GST portal, and service of notice should have been effected through alternative modes.

Key Issues

1. Whether the service of notices exclusively through the GST portal, after the cancellation of the petitioner's registration, can be regarded as 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 contended that after the cancellation of his GST registration, he was not obligated to check the GST portal. He argued that service of notice should have been effected through alternative modes, citing judgments from the Allahabad High Court in M/s Ahs Steels vs. Commissioner of State Taxes and M/s Katyal Industries vs. State of U.P. and others. These judgments emphasized that portal-based service is not the exclusive method and the Department must ensure effective communication, especially when the assessee's registration is cancelled, as imposing a duty on a non-registered person is not contemplated by law. The petitioner also relied on the principle of audi alteram partem enshrined in Section 75(4) and the Supreme Court's decision in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh. Revenue's Arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the Revenue in response to the petitioner's contentions.