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

Facts

The petitioner, M/s S G Traders, had its GST registration cancelled on 25.11.2021, effective from 03.09.2021. The revenue did not dispute that the registration was never revived or that the petitioner had not sought its revival. Consequently, the petitioner argued it was not obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2020-21, which preceded an adjudication order dated 27.09.2024. The revenue also did not contend that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before the impugned order was passed. Given these circumstances, the Court found no purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the period 2020-21, given that its GST registration had been cancelled effective 03.09.2021 and was not subsequently revived. The revenue did not dispute this fact, nor did it assert that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner prior to the adjudication order dated 27.09.2024. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled. Therefore, the adjudication order dated 27.09.2024 was set aside. The petitioner was directed to treat the said order as a notice and submit its final reply within four weeks. Following this, a fresh order was to be passed after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to check the GST portal for show cause notices issued for the period 2020-21, given the cancellation of its GST registration effective from 03.09.2021, and in the absence of any revival of such registration, thereby turning on principles of natural justice and the procedural requirements for issuing notices under the UPGST Act, 2017. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled and never revived, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for any e-mode notices. The revenue did not dispute this fact or claim that any physical notice was served. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not present any argument disputing the petitioner's claim regarding the non-receipt of notices or the obligation to check the portal.