Rajeev Kumar Dhawan vs. Assistant Commissioner (State Tax) State Tax Division- Sector 12 Noida GST Bhawan And 2 Others

Facts

The petitioner, Rajeev Kumar Dhawan Security Agency, had its GST registration under the UPGST Act, 2017 cancelled on July 26, 2022, effective from July 1, 2022. The revenue has not contended that this registration was ever revived or 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 2019-20, which preceded the adjudication orders dated August 24, 2024, and August 31, 2024. The revenue has also not claimed that any physical or offline notice was served on the petitioner before these impugned orders were passed. The High Court considered these facts before passing its order.

Held

The Court held that the petitioner was not obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices for the period 2019-20, as its GST registration had been cancelled effective July 1, 2022, and had not been revived. The Court found that the essential requirement of the rules of natural justice had not been fulfilled because the revenue did not issue any physical/offline notice to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders dated August 24, 2024, and August 31, 2024. Consequently, the Court set aside these orders. The petitioner was granted liberty to submit its reply to the show cause notice within four weeks. Upon compliance, the revenue was directed to pass a fresh order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, expeditiously, preferably within three months. The Court found no useful purpose in keeping the petition pending or relegating the petitioner to an alternative remedy.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner was obligated to visit the GST portal to receive show cause notices issued for the tax period 2019-20, given that its GST registration was cancelled effective July 1, 2022, and had not been revived, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of law and fact, turning on the implications of registration cancellation on notice requirements under GST law). Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that since its GST registration was cancelled, it was not required to monitor the GST portal for notices. The issuance of notices and subsequent adjudication orders without proper service, especially when physical notice was not provided, violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner relied on the fact that its registration was cancelled and not revived. Revenue's Contention: The revenue did not dispute that the petitioner's registration was cancelled. It also did not claim that any physical notice was served. The judgment does not record specific arguments from the revenue regarding the petitioner's obligation to check the portal or the validity of the notices.