M/S S G Traders vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S G Traders, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on November 25, 2021, effective from September 3, 2021. The revenue has not disputed that the registration was never revived, nor that the petitioner sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argues it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2021-22 via e-mode, preceding the adjudication order dated September 27, 2024. The revenue has also not claimed that any physical or offline notice was issued or served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. The High Court noted these peculiar facts.

Held

The Court held that given the undisputed facts that the petitioner's GST registration was cancelled effective September 3, 2021, and was never revived, the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued via e-mode for the period 2021-22. The Court found that the revenue had not issued any physical/offline notice to the petitioner before passing the adjudication order dated September 27, 2024. Therefore, the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. The Court set aside the order dated September 27, 2024, and directed that the petitioner treat the said order as a notice and submit its final reply within four weeks. Subsequently, a fresh order was to be passed after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2021-22 via e-mode, given the cancellation of its GST registration effective September 3, 2021, and no revival thereafter? (Question of law, turning on principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under the GST Act). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its registration was cancelled and never revived, it was not obligated to check the GST portal for e-mode notices. They contended that the revenue failed to issue any physical/offline notice before passing the adjudication order, thus violating principles of natural justice. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute the cancellation of registration or the lack of revival. They also did not claim any physical/offline notice was served. Their primary stance appears to be implicit in the passing of the adjudication order without challenging the petitioner's argument on notice.